Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Separate Lives in Books
Feb 13, 2018
It all begins when Susie sees the text on Alex's phone: "Start living a different kind of life ...P :-) xxx." Convinced he's having an affair, Susie sets off on her own trajectory that threatens their partnership of ten years and their life with their two children. And Alex? Is he completely innocent in all of this? And what about the mysterious P?
This novel is told from the alternating point of view of Susie, Alex, and Pippa. Susie's pieces come via standard narrative, Alex's mainly through email exchanges with his brothers and sister, and Pippa via emails to her sister. While this starts off as sort of enjoyable and different, it can grow old quickly (though the email format moved quickly at least). For instance, Pippa and Susie have a way of veering off into tangents about their past, which drove me absolutely insane. These summaries seemed not at all relevant to the book (what they wore and read at seventeen!) and dragged the narrative down and the story on forever.
Meanwhile, the novel sounds interesting in its premise: a group of characters brought together by a potential technological misunderstanding. It's certainly why I selected it as an ARC. The problem is that none of the characters are remotely redeemable or likeable. While a book that revolves around infidelity may not always have the most personable of characters, you can usually find some humanity them. This group: I just could not find any reason to root for them. I would find an occasional glimpse in Susie or Pippa, but overall, they all annoyed me with their whining and life choices, and I felt sorry for their children! Add to that a plot filled with a variety of twists and turns that would be better off in a soap opera or Lifetime movie (surprise pregnancies! love affairs with a spouse's siblings!), and my frustration level reached its peak. Again, there were moments I liked, but overall I just didn't find a lot of humor or enjoyment in this novel. 2.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 12/06/2016
This novel is told from the alternating point of view of Susie, Alex, and Pippa. Susie's pieces come via standard narrative, Alex's mainly through email exchanges with his brothers and sister, and Pippa via emails to her sister. While this starts off as sort of enjoyable and different, it can grow old quickly (though the email format moved quickly at least). For instance, Pippa and Susie have a way of veering off into tangents about their past, which drove me absolutely insane. These summaries seemed not at all relevant to the book (what they wore and read at seventeen!) and dragged the narrative down and the story on forever.
Meanwhile, the novel sounds interesting in its premise: a group of characters brought together by a potential technological misunderstanding. It's certainly why I selected it as an ARC. The problem is that none of the characters are remotely redeemable or likeable. While a book that revolves around infidelity may not always have the most personable of characters, you can usually find some humanity them. This group: I just could not find any reason to root for them. I would find an occasional glimpse in Susie or Pippa, but overall, they all annoyed me with their whining and life choices, and I felt sorry for their children! Add to that a plot filled with a variety of twists and turns that would be better off in a soap opera or Lifetime movie (surprise pregnancies! love affairs with a spouse's siblings!), and my frustration level reached its peak. Again, there were moments I liked, but overall I just didn't find a lot of humor or enjoyment in this novel. 2.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 12/06/2016
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Eight Hundred Grapes in Books
Feb 13, 2018
I feel torn about the rating for this book, which probably truly clocks in at 3.5 stars. For a decent part of this novel, I felt slightly annoyed with its protagonist, Georgia. Georgia returns to her parents' home in disgrace a few days before her wedding, after finding out her fiance has been keeping a crazy secret from her.
Her parents' home is a vineyard in California, where Georgia grew up with her older twin brothers, Finn and Bobby. She expects to find the comfort she always experienced as a kid (but also ran away from - she's very clear that she left the vineyard for a life as a more glamorous lawyer). But upon arriving home, she finds that no one is really happy -- not her parents, not Bobby and his wife, and not Finn.Yet, she finds herself longing for life at the vineyard more and more, even as everything is falling apart around her. Hmm.
There are several plotlines in this novel that, when combined, all seem a little ludicrous. Georgia's fiance Ben's secret involves a movie star. The crazy issues between the brothers. The problems and arrangement between her parents. What happens with the vineyard. Even the ending. One or two of the storylines, perhaps, I would have found more believable. All together, it is a bit much. Add in Georgia's constant vacillating (I'm getting married! I'm not! I am!), and it gets to be a bit old.
However, I have to cut Georgia some slack, as I realize, despite the lawyerly job and upcoming wedding, she's young, and she has had quite a shock. She eventually grew on me a bit as the storyline progressed and she herself grew up a bit. And, as silly and as "neat" (as in, neatly tied up) the ending was, it warmed my heart a bit and made me end the book on a good note.
Still, I think I may pick up a Michael Jordan biography next. I'm a little tired of flighty thirty-somethings! Time for a clever, genius, and sometimes angry athlete for a change of pace.
Her parents' home is a vineyard in California, where Georgia grew up with her older twin brothers, Finn and Bobby. She expects to find the comfort she always experienced as a kid (but also ran away from - she's very clear that she left the vineyard for a life as a more glamorous lawyer). But upon arriving home, she finds that no one is really happy -- not her parents, not Bobby and his wife, and not Finn.Yet, she finds herself longing for life at the vineyard more and more, even as everything is falling apart around her. Hmm.
There are several plotlines in this novel that, when combined, all seem a little ludicrous. Georgia's fiance Ben's secret involves a movie star. The crazy issues between the brothers. The problems and arrangement between her parents. What happens with the vineyard. Even the ending. One or two of the storylines, perhaps, I would have found more believable. All together, it is a bit much. Add in Georgia's constant vacillating (I'm getting married! I'm not! I am!), and it gets to be a bit old.
However, I have to cut Georgia some slack, as I realize, despite the lawyerly job and upcoming wedding, she's young, and she has had quite a shock. She eventually grew on me a bit as the storyline progressed and she herself grew up a bit. And, as silly and as "neat" (as in, neatly tied up) the ending was, it warmed my heart a bit and made me end the book on a good note.
Still, I think I may pick up a Michael Jordan biography next. I'm a little tired of flighty thirty-somethings! Time for a clever, genius, and sometimes angry athlete for a change of pace.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Seven (1995) in Movies
Nov 18, 2020
A timeless crime thriller
Film #2 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Se7en
Se7en (1995) is directed by David Fincher and stars Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, as two detectives investigating a serial killer murdering people according to the seven deadly sins. From the very beginning we are plunged into the dark, gritty and nameless city home to almost retired Detective Somerset (Freeman) and new transfer Detective Mills (Pitt). It’s a grim and grey landscape with seemingly never ending rain and some rather dark and disturbing murders to match. The cinematography in this is superb. Fincher has created an almost film noir style crime thriller with an edgy yet stylish look and feel that completely encompasses the subject matter perfectly. It’s the bizarre incongruences, like Somerset using a typewriter while the rest of the precinct use computers, or the almost complete lack of cultural references, that give this a timeless stylised feel.
And the subject matter itself sounds, on the surface, like a by the book detective story. But Se7en is much more than your average run of the mill thriller. Yes the two lead characters Mills and Somerset are the typical cops you’d find in any police movie: headstrong impulsive young gun versus wizened sensible and rational senior. But the performances from Freeman and Pitt are top notch, I’d even go so far as saying career best, and this paired with a clever script and a fairly horrifying plot that being this into the territory of one of the best detective movies ever made. The amount of quotable lines in the movie is surprising – any crime film that can include the line “Just because the fucker’s got a library card doesn’t make him Yoda” is on to a winner.
The central focus on the seven deadly sins simply adds to the intrigue and general intelligence of this as well. Regardless of your beliefs or background, it’s unlikely that there are many who haven’t heard of the seven deadly sins, and using these to murder people in rather horrific ways really enhances the threat and tension. Especially as the killer begins to leave hidden clues and hints in the hopes the detectives are smart enough to find them, which takes us as the viewer along for a rather interesting ride.
This is, without a doubt, very dark and fairly graphic with it’s crime scene depictions but it never feels like it goes too far. It’s gruesome and bloody but without that feeling of horror and disgust that comes from films that go over the top (i.e. the Saw franchise). And it isn’t all doom and gloom either as Fincher easily works in some rather heartwarming scenes between Somerset, Mills and Mill’s wife Tracey (Gwyneth Paltrow), as well as some well placed laugh out loud moments that further enhance the realistic tone that the film is trying to betray.
However the standout and most memorable moment for Se7en comes during the last half an hour. For those that haven’t seen the film and don’t want spoilers, shame on you and you may want to read no further…. It’s the final scenes when John Doe hands himself in to the detectives and takes them on a road trip into the wilderness to reveal his last two victims. Kevin Spacey, who wasn’t credited in the films opening sequence, puts in a stellar performance as the unnerving and downright creepy serial killer, whose motives are deeply disturbing. You can’t take your eyes off him in this final act. Pair this with a (literally) killer twist that no-one, let alone the detectives who have been one step behind Doe this entire movie, sees coming and a chilling denouement that perfectly wraps up the final two sins.
Se7en is by far one of the best detective thrillers ever made. It’s a masterpiece in filmmaking from David Fincher and some of the best work Freeman, Spacey and Pitt have ever done. 25 years on and this film is a timeless classic.
Se7en (1995) is directed by David Fincher and stars Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, as two detectives investigating a serial killer murdering people according to the seven deadly sins. From the very beginning we are plunged into the dark, gritty and nameless city home to almost retired Detective Somerset (Freeman) and new transfer Detective Mills (Pitt). It’s a grim and grey landscape with seemingly never ending rain and some rather dark and disturbing murders to match. The cinematography in this is superb. Fincher has created an almost film noir style crime thriller with an edgy yet stylish look and feel that completely encompasses the subject matter perfectly. It’s the bizarre incongruences, like Somerset using a typewriter while the rest of the precinct use computers, or the almost complete lack of cultural references, that give this a timeless stylised feel.
And the subject matter itself sounds, on the surface, like a by the book detective story. But Se7en is much more than your average run of the mill thriller. Yes the two lead characters Mills and Somerset are the typical cops you’d find in any police movie: headstrong impulsive young gun versus wizened sensible and rational senior. But the performances from Freeman and Pitt are top notch, I’d even go so far as saying career best, and this paired with a clever script and a fairly horrifying plot that being this into the territory of one of the best detective movies ever made. The amount of quotable lines in the movie is surprising – any crime film that can include the line “Just because the fucker’s got a library card doesn’t make him Yoda” is on to a winner.
The central focus on the seven deadly sins simply adds to the intrigue and general intelligence of this as well. Regardless of your beliefs or background, it’s unlikely that there are many who haven’t heard of the seven deadly sins, and using these to murder people in rather horrific ways really enhances the threat and tension. Especially as the killer begins to leave hidden clues and hints in the hopes the detectives are smart enough to find them, which takes us as the viewer along for a rather interesting ride.
This is, without a doubt, very dark and fairly graphic with it’s crime scene depictions but it never feels like it goes too far. It’s gruesome and bloody but without that feeling of horror and disgust that comes from films that go over the top (i.e. the Saw franchise). And it isn’t all doom and gloom either as Fincher easily works in some rather heartwarming scenes between Somerset, Mills and Mill’s wife Tracey (Gwyneth Paltrow), as well as some well placed laugh out loud moments that further enhance the realistic tone that the film is trying to betray.
However the standout and most memorable moment for Se7en comes during the last half an hour. For those that haven’t seen the film and don’t want spoilers, shame on you and you may want to read no further…. It’s the final scenes when John Doe hands himself in to the detectives and takes them on a road trip into the wilderness to reveal his last two victims. Kevin Spacey, who wasn’t credited in the films opening sequence, puts in a stellar performance as the unnerving and downright creepy serial killer, whose motives are deeply disturbing. You can’t take your eyes off him in this final act. Pair this with a (literally) killer twist that no-one, let alone the detectives who have been one step behind Doe this entire movie, sees coming and a chilling denouement that perfectly wraps up the final two sins.
Se7en is by far one of the best detective thrillers ever made. It’s a masterpiece in filmmaking from David Fincher and some of the best work Freeman, Spacey and Pitt have ever done. 25 years on and this film is a timeless classic.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Pale Blue Eye (2022) in Movies
Jan 15, 2023
Haunting and Intriguing
An eerie, gothic murder mystery pairing an ingenious Detective with a young Edgar Allan Poe is now streaming on Netflix and is the perfect way to shut out the January winds and hibernate on your couch and get involved in the mystery while sitting in front of a warm, roaring fire (or heat lamp) and your favorite warm (possibly adult) beverage).
Written for the screen (from book by Louis Bayard) and Directed by Scott Cooper (OUT OF THE FURNACE), THE PALE BLUE EYE stars the always good Christian Bale (probably my favorite actor working today) as Civilian Detective Augustus Landor who is summoned to 1830’s West Point Military Academy to solve a murder. He is aided by a young cadet played by Harry Melling (Dudley Dursley in the HARRY POTTER FILMS) who turns out to be none other than Edgar Allan Poe.
Cooper films this movie in shadow and dark brown and yellow tones, giving the 1830’s setting a certain dream-like, dreary quality that underscores the gruesome goings-on happening behind the scenes at the fledgling United States Military Academy. These types of films - and the mood that is permeated throughout - can often be slow slogs and often times bogs down under the weight of it’s own pretentiousness - but Cooper keeps the action moving forward (though at a deliberate pace) often-times mimicking the piecing together of the circumstances that Bale’s character is doing.
Thank goodness Cooper had the good sense to reunite with his OUT OF THE FURNACE star and cast Bale in the lead role. The character of Detective Augustus Landor is dark and brooding - himself still working through the emotions of a tragedy from his past. But he is also thoughtful and deliberate in his detective work and Bale handles these moods…and the pacing of the film…like the pro that he is. If for no other reason, check out THE PALE BLUE EYE (a reference to Poe’s TELL TALE HEART) for Bale’s performance at the center of things.
Fortunately, Bale is aided in this film by a strong ensemble of (mostly) British actors from Toby Jones to Gillian Anderson to Simon McBurney and Timothy Spall - they all bring their considerable talents to lesser roles as suspects and/or witnesses in this “whodunnit”. Cooper also trots out good ol’ (and I do mean old) Robert Duvall for a “blink or you’ll miss it” cameo. The casting works well for this gothic murder mystery.
And then there is Melling as Edgar Allan Poe. He plays Poe as you might expect one to play a young Edgar Allan Poe - as an “odd duck” who is fascinated by macabre scenarios (which would be later found in his storytelling), but Melling gives him an intelligence and gentleness of soul that really works in this case.
The Cinematography of this movie is bleak and dark - as befits a gothic murder mystery - and the pacing is not fast in any sense of the word, but if you click into this world, you’ll be rewarding by an interesting murder mystery that resolves itself in a surprising - and satisfactory - way.
Letter Grade: B+
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written for the screen (from book by Louis Bayard) and Directed by Scott Cooper (OUT OF THE FURNACE), THE PALE BLUE EYE stars the always good Christian Bale (probably my favorite actor working today) as Civilian Detective Augustus Landor who is summoned to 1830’s West Point Military Academy to solve a murder. He is aided by a young cadet played by Harry Melling (Dudley Dursley in the HARRY POTTER FILMS) who turns out to be none other than Edgar Allan Poe.
Cooper films this movie in shadow and dark brown and yellow tones, giving the 1830’s setting a certain dream-like, dreary quality that underscores the gruesome goings-on happening behind the scenes at the fledgling United States Military Academy. These types of films - and the mood that is permeated throughout - can often be slow slogs and often times bogs down under the weight of it’s own pretentiousness - but Cooper keeps the action moving forward (though at a deliberate pace) often-times mimicking the piecing together of the circumstances that Bale’s character is doing.
Thank goodness Cooper had the good sense to reunite with his OUT OF THE FURNACE star and cast Bale in the lead role. The character of Detective Augustus Landor is dark and brooding - himself still working through the emotions of a tragedy from his past. But he is also thoughtful and deliberate in his detective work and Bale handles these moods…and the pacing of the film…like the pro that he is. If for no other reason, check out THE PALE BLUE EYE (a reference to Poe’s TELL TALE HEART) for Bale’s performance at the center of things.
Fortunately, Bale is aided in this film by a strong ensemble of (mostly) British actors from Toby Jones to Gillian Anderson to Simon McBurney and Timothy Spall - they all bring their considerable talents to lesser roles as suspects and/or witnesses in this “whodunnit”. Cooper also trots out good ol’ (and I do mean old) Robert Duvall for a “blink or you’ll miss it” cameo. The casting works well for this gothic murder mystery.
And then there is Melling as Edgar Allan Poe. He plays Poe as you might expect one to play a young Edgar Allan Poe - as an “odd duck” who is fascinated by macabre scenarios (which would be later found in his storytelling), but Melling gives him an intelligence and gentleness of soul that really works in this case.
The Cinematography of this movie is bleak and dark - as befits a gothic murder mystery - and the pacing is not fast in any sense of the word, but if you click into this world, you’ll be rewarding by an interesting murder mystery that resolves itself in a surprising - and satisfactory - way.
Letter Grade: B+
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated House of Gucci (2021) in Movies
May 14, 2022
Not As Bad As You Heard
“It’s Not As Bad As You Heard” is the very definition of damning with faint praise, but that phrase accurately describes one of the highest profile film failures of 2021 - HOUSE OF GUCCI.
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Whenever I was asked who my favorite Disney prince was, I’d answer, without hesitation, “The Beast.”
Friends would look at me askance and ask, “The Beast? Really?”
And I’d simply reply, “Have you not seen his library?”
I also claim Belle as my favorite Disney princess. As a bookworm, Beauty and the Beast gave me a princess I could relate to. Sure, I had just graduated from high school the year before the animated film – not really the demographic Disney was catering to. But when I first watched Belle’s introductory scene, as she made her way through the village with her nose buried in a book while the townfolk sang of her “odd” behavior, I felt l the corners of my lips rise on their own, in a smile of recognition.
Sure, it also may have been because of the clever lyrics of the late Howard Ashman and the wondrous melodies of Alan Menken in that first song alone, but Belle quickly me over not only with her joy for stories and spirit of adventure, but also with her brave spirit.
Beauty and the Beast is a fairy tale told many times over and Disney’s live-action version follows the animated classic closely with some variation and additional scenes and few more songs. Like the animated film, it’s sweepingly romantic and just as enchanting. What the audience may struggle with is that Emma Watson’s Belle is not as…well, animated as the animated Belle. She brings a solemnity to the role, and as singing talent goes, while she is no Paige O’Hara, she can sing.
Luke Evans makes a menacingly handsome Gaston and his big number, with his sidekick LeFou (Josh Gad) is an entertaining high point that cements Gaston’s position as my favorite villain. Dan Stevens brought a bit more humanity to Beast, and with a heartbreaking song of his own, his despair is more keenly felt in this movie. But I have to admit, I prefer Josh Groban’s version of Beast’s solo, which you do get to hear if you sit through the credits.
Lumière the candelabra and Cogsworth the clock were brought to life with great voice work Ewan McGregor and Ian McKellen, respectively. Emma Thompson voiced Mrs. Potts perfectly. I don’t know if it was her voice, the theme song or the ballroom dance scene that provoked an overwhelming sense of nostalgia, but the captivating combination literally brought tears to my eyes. Kevin Kline, who played Belle’s father, Maurice, Stanley Tucci, and Broadway great Audra McDonald round out a solid supporting cast.
As a huge fan of the 1991 Beauty and the Beast, I didn’t believe a live-action version could improve on the beloved, timeless classic. But just like with the animated film, it was truly the songs that made the movie, and the music does it again for the live-action film, making it a memorable, magical treat for young and old alike.
Friends would look at me askance and ask, “The Beast? Really?”
And I’d simply reply, “Have you not seen his library?”
I also claim Belle as my favorite Disney princess. As a bookworm, Beauty and the Beast gave me a princess I could relate to. Sure, I had just graduated from high school the year before the animated film – not really the demographic Disney was catering to. But when I first watched Belle’s introductory scene, as she made her way through the village with her nose buried in a book while the townfolk sang of her “odd” behavior, I felt l the corners of my lips rise on their own, in a smile of recognition.
Sure, it also may have been because of the clever lyrics of the late Howard Ashman and the wondrous melodies of Alan Menken in that first song alone, but Belle quickly me over not only with her joy for stories and spirit of adventure, but also with her brave spirit.
Beauty and the Beast is a fairy tale told many times over and Disney’s live-action version follows the animated classic closely with some variation and additional scenes and few more songs. Like the animated film, it’s sweepingly romantic and just as enchanting. What the audience may struggle with is that Emma Watson’s Belle is not as…well, animated as the animated Belle. She brings a solemnity to the role, and as singing talent goes, while she is no Paige O’Hara, she can sing.
Luke Evans makes a menacingly handsome Gaston and his big number, with his sidekick LeFou (Josh Gad) is an entertaining high point that cements Gaston’s position as my favorite villain. Dan Stevens brought a bit more humanity to Beast, and with a heartbreaking song of his own, his despair is more keenly felt in this movie. But I have to admit, I prefer Josh Groban’s version of Beast’s solo, which you do get to hear if you sit through the credits.
Lumière the candelabra and Cogsworth the clock were brought to life with great voice work Ewan McGregor and Ian McKellen, respectively. Emma Thompson voiced Mrs. Potts perfectly. I don’t know if it was her voice, the theme song or the ballroom dance scene that provoked an overwhelming sense of nostalgia, but the captivating combination literally brought tears to my eyes. Kevin Kline, who played Belle’s father, Maurice, Stanley Tucci, and Broadway great Audra McDonald round out a solid supporting cast.
As a huge fan of the 1991 Beauty and the Beast, I didn’t believe a live-action version could improve on the beloved, timeless classic. But just like with the animated film, it was truly the songs that made the movie, and the music does it again for the live-action film, making it a memorable, magical treat for young and old alike.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
Bland with the exception of Christopher Plummer
By now, almost everyone knows about the last minute switch of Christopher Plummer in place of current-pariah Kevin Spacey as pivotal Billionaire J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, so when I checked out Plummer's Oscar nominated turn, I couldn't but help see if I could tell when Scott put in a new scene and where he just "augmented" his scenes with Plummer. And then, a funny thing happened...
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bullet Train (2022) in Movies
Aug 10, 2022
Ultra-Violent...and a TON of Fun!
Early conversations surrounding the new Brad Pitt action flick BULLET TRAIN label this film as “Ultra-Violent”.
They say this as if it is a bad thing.
Directed by David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2) with a screenplay by Zak Olkewicz (FEAR STREET: PART TWO) and based on the book Kotaro Isaka, BULLET TRAIN is (no arguing here) an Ultra-Violent action flick in every sense of the term, set on the famed titular Japanese Bullet Train and follows an operative by the codename Ladybug (played by Pitt who you know from such gentle fair as FIGHT CLUB and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS) who’s easy “snatch and grab” job is nothing easy thanks to the appearance of various other nefarious individuals who also are looking for that case.
Following in the footsteps of such similarily-violent flicks as NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, TRAINING DAY, FARGO and just about anything Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Director Leitch uses the violence, mayhem and bloodshed to ADD to the story (which all of the aforementioned films also did with great affect) and not “just” to be violent. And that’s an important distinction here. If the ultra-violence is fun and important to moving the story and plot along (and not just there to be gratuitous), then the movie can succeed quite well - and this one does.
What also makes these types of movies succeed is the plotting - which is sharp by writer Okewicz - and the twists and turns that you do not see coming - but make sense along the way (and will reward the viewer upon repeated viewing) and Bullet Train does this as well. It is a smartly made film that is crisply directed with some terrific action sequences (though, if I’m being fair, at times the CGI is not as good as it could/should be), but it is entertaining as all get out.
Leading us through this mayhem is the always charming and charismatic Pitt who parlays the “goofball” personae of a person in just a little over his head but comes out on top due to luck (or skill) - you be the judge. Pitt is the perfect performer for the audience to become invested in as he is the one that you need to be rooting for throughout - and you do from just about the beginning.
Leitch, wisely then, surrounded Pitt with some terrific character actors in this venture. From Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICK-ASS) to Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) to Joey King (THE CONJURING) to the always terrific Hiroyuki Sanada (MORTAL COMBAT) and a host of others who do extended cameos - and to name them would be to spoil the fun of them. They all understand what type of film they are in and all seem to be having a good time going along with it all.
And why not? Bullet Train is a delight in the cinema - for those of you who like action and violence that is pretty spectacular and over the top. It is a heckuva lotta fun.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (Out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
They say this as if it is a bad thing.
Directed by David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2) with a screenplay by Zak Olkewicz (FEAR STREET: PART TWO) and based on the book Kotaro Isaka, BULLET TRAIN is (no arguing here) an Ultra-Violent action flick in every sense of the term, set on the famed titular Japanese Bullet Train and follows an operative by the codename Ladybug (played by Pitt who you know from such gentle fair as FIGHT CLUB and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS) who’s easy “snatch and grab” job is nothing easy thanks to the appearance of various other nefarious individuals who also are looking for that case.
Following in the footsteps of such similarily-violent flicks as NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, TRAINING DAY, FARGO and just about anything Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Director Leitch uses the violence, mayhem and bloodshed to ADD to the story (which all of the aforementioned films also did with great affect) and not “just” to be violent. And that’s an important distinction here. If the ultra-violence is fun and important to moving the story and plot along (and not just there to be gratuitous), then the movie can succeed quite well - and this one does.
What also makes these types of movies succeed is the plotting - which is sharp by writer Okewicz - and the twists and turns that you do not see coming - but make sense along the way (and will reward the viewer upon repeated viewing) and Bullet Train does this as well. It is a smartly made film that is crisply directed with some terrific action sequences (though, if I’m being fair, at times the CGI is not as good as it could/should be), but it is entertaining as all get out.
Leading us through this mayhem is the always charming and charismatic Pitt who parlays the “goofball” personae of a person in just a little over his head but comes out on top due to luck (or skill) - you be the judge. Pitt is the perfect performer for the audience to become invested in as he is the one that you need to be rooting for throughout - and you do from just about the beginning.
Leitch, wisely then, surrounded Pitt with some terrific character actors in this venture. From Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICK-ASS) to Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) to Joey King (THE CONJURING) to the always terrific Hiroyuki Sanada (MORTAL COMBAT) and a host of others who do extended cameos - and to name them would be to spoil the fun of them. They all understand what type of film they are in and all seem to be having a good time going along with it all.
And why not? Bullet Train is a delight in the cinema - for those of you who like action and violence that is pretty spectacular and over the top. It is a heckuva lotta fun.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (Out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated 6 Below: Miracle on the Mountain (2017) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Characters – Eric LeMarque had a future as one of the top ice hockey players, he threw this away with hiss reckless behaviour which has seen his career all but gone. With his addiction taking over his life, he finds himself hitting rock bottom and needing to find some hope. Heading for a snowboard away from the world he ends up lost in the harsh wilderness doing everything he can to survive in the conditions which will test his desire to get over his addictions and rebuild his life. Susan is his mother, she has always supported her son and will do anything to help him put his life back on track and is the first to notice he hasn’t been heard from for days. Sarah is one of the rescue team on the mountain, she leads the search once they learn that Eric is missing.
Performances – Josh Hartnett in the leading role does a good job, even if it feels slightly mis-cast because you get the feeling Eric was a lot younger than Hartnett. Mira Sorvino and Sarah Dumont are both solid in the supporting roles as we see them both needing to make difficult decisions.
Story – The story here follows the incredible survival story of Eric LeMarque as he faces days lost in the snow-covered mountain range without anyone searching for him for days, while also battling his own demons of addiction. The story itself is based on the real events that happened to the man who needed to rebuild his life. This does show us just how hard the survival was, though it just doesn’t become the truly engrossing story it could have been, because anything that happens is something we have seen before, be it wolves or injuries. Eric isn’t the most likely guy either because anyone that throws away a sporting career for drugs frustrates the audience. The rescue side of the film either needed to be a bigger involvement or not involved at all, we simply don’t get enough focus on what is happening on this side of the film.
Adventure/Biopic – The adventure side of the film shows us just what could go wrong for an ambitious rush can turn into a battle to survive. The biopic side of the film shows us the days which Eric is lost in the harsh snowy mountain conditions as he battles to survive and his own demons.
Settings – The film puts us in the mountain range covered in snow, showing us how easy it could be to become lost and how hard it would be to survive.
Scene of the Movie – The climb.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Hartnett feels too old for this role.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book survival story, it does show an incredible fight to survive and does give us a form of redemption for a young man who was throwing his life away.
Overall: By the books survival film.
Rating
Performances – Josh Hartnett in the leading role does a good job, even if it feels slightly mis-cast because you get the feeling Eric was a lot younger than Hartnett. Mira Sorvino and Sarah Dumont are both solid in the supporting roles as we see them both needing to make difficult decisions.
Story – The story here follows the incredible survival story of Eric LeMarque as he faces days lost in the snow-covered mountain range without anyone searching for him for days, while also battling his own demons of addiction. The story itself is based on the real events that happened to the man who needed to rebuild his life. This does show us just how hard the survival was, though it just doesn’t become the truly engrossing story it could have been, because anything that happens is something we have seen before, be it wolves or injuries. Eric isn’t the most likely guy either because anyone that throws away a sporting career for drugs frustrates the audience. The rescue side of the film either needed to be a bigger involvement or not involved at all, we simply don’t get enough focus on what is happening on this side of the film.
Adventure/Biopic – The adventure side of the film shows us just what could go wrong for an ambitious rush can turn into a battle to survive. The biopic side of the film shows us the days which Eric is lost in the harsh snowy mountain conditions as he battles to survive and his own demons.
Settings – The film puts us in the mountain range covered in snow, showing us how easy it could be to become lost and how hard it would be to survive.
Scene of the Movie – The climb.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Hartnett feels too old for this role.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book survival story, it does show an incredible fight to survive and does give us a form of redemption for a young man who was throwing his life away.
Overall: By the books survival film.
Rating