Search
Search results
Twelve Nights at Rotter House
6.0
Rate It
Book
Felix Allsey is a travel writer with a keen eye for the paranormal, and he's carved out a unique, if...
Bodies of Desire and Bodies in Distress: The Golden Age of Italian Cult Cinema, 1970-1985
Book
In recent years, there has been an explosion of critical interest in the icons, genres and...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Extraction (2020) in Movies
May 6, 2020
Fun, by-the-book, action flick
I'm pretty sure that no matter what, I was going to enjoy the Chris Hemsworth action flick EXTRACTION whether it was good or not. It is, after all, a NEW movie, albeit one that was made "Direct to Netflix", so those can be of lesser quality.
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MasterSolace (19 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019
The Music(it's Disney) (4 more)
The Special Effects(it's Disney)
The Atmosphere
The Cast & Characters
One last bit... in the review
Live-Action Magic
Contains spoilers, click to show
Disney has been on a kick of redoing their animated masterpieces into live action masterpieces. It worked with Cinderella... Jungle Book was flawed, but still wild... and Beauty and the Beast was simply Beautiful. So... was this reimagining of Aladdin up to par...
You are damn right it was.
Let's get this out of the way first. Live action musicals still make me feel awkward. Granted, this is Disney... but animated musicals feel just fine. That being said, the numbers were spot on for the most part, while still being slightly altered for the cast in the present. Yes, that includes slight tweaks due to Will Smith being an actual musician(as much as I love Robin Williams, he was not). And those were made(dammit... sorry for the pun)... Fresh.
Acting on point. Because Disney. Sorry, but it's true.
Was the movie perfect? No. It does have some flaws, but nothing that hinders the movie overall. And most of them for me where solely because of the musical numbers. That being said, "Speechless"... bravo Alan Menken.
There is one part of this version that does IMPROVE over the original. The City of Agrabah. The animated version felt nothing more than a backdrop, but this City felt like it was organic. Like an ACTUAL city they were fighting for.
Other changes were proper... made it more modern. Including Jasmine motivation(instead of marrying who she wants, she is made Sultan... so she can protect and serve her people... she marries Aladdin anyway)... and Jafar's true plans(he didn't just want Agrabah, he wanted to conquer the neighboring nations, as well). Jafar in the original was DRAWN menacing... live action Jafar was devious due to his ambitions. Good job, Disney.
How about the Genie? How did Will Smith do? Well... he was great. BUT Disney did something different this time. In the original, because Robin was the star, it put extra focus on how outrageous he was. Will Smith was the billed star, but they put more focus on who the story was really about... Aladdin. Will Smith served a purpose. He might've been the bigger name, but he did NOT play the biggest part. At least, that is what I feel happened.... and it was for the better.
Was it as good as the original? No. Because there is no true comparison. If you haven't seen it... please... erase the original from your mind for a moment... go see this one... then go back and watch the original. While we KNOW the comparison... there shouldn't be one. This live-action version isn't exactly the same, and it shouldn't be. Askewed focus... different delivery... it maybe Disney's remake, but this version should be approached as if you were watching it from a different perspective......
Treat it as if it were it's own movie.
And know this... the best positive of all...
Robin would've loved it.
You are damn right it was.
Let's get this out of the way first. Live action musicals still make me feel awkward. Granted, this is Disney... but animated musicals feel just fine. That being said, the numbers were spot on for the most part, while still being slightly altered for the cast in the present. Yes, that includes slight tweaks due to Will Smith being an actual musician(as much as I love Robin Williams, he was not). And those were made(dammit... sorry for the pun)... Fresh.
Acting on point. Because Disney. Sorry, but it's true.
Was the movie perfect? No. It does have some flaws, but nothing that hinders the movie overall. And most of them for me where solely because of the musical numbers. That being said, "Speechless"... bravo Alan Menken.
There is one part of this version that does IMPROVE over the original. The City of Agrabah. The animated version felt nothing more than a backdrop, but this City felt like it was organic. Like an ACTUAL city they were fighting for.
Other changes were proper... made it more modern. Including Jasmine motivation(instead of marrying who she wants, she is made Sultan... so she can protect and serve her people... she marries Aladdin anyway)... and Jafar's true plans(he didn't just want Agrabah, he wanted to conquer the neighboring nations, as well). Jafar in the original was DRAWN menacing... live action Jafar was devious due to his ambitions. Good job, Disney.
How about the Genie? How did Will Smith do? Well... he was great. BUT Disney did something different this time. In the original, because Robin was the star, it put extra focus on how outrageous he was. Will Smith was the billed star, but they put more focus on who the story was really about... Aladdin. Will Smith served a purpose. He might've been the bigger name, but he did NOT play the biggest part. At least, that is what I feel happened.... and it was for the better.
Was it as good as the original? No. Because there is no true comparison. If you haven't seen it... please... erase the original from your mind for a moment... go see this one... then go back and watch the original. While we KNOW the comparison... there shouldn't be one. This live-action version isn't exactly the same, and it shouldn't be. Askewed focus... different delivery... it maybe Disney's remake, but this version should be approached as if you were watching it from a different perspective......
Treat it as if it were it's own movie.
And know this... the best positive of all...
Robin would've loved it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Flyboys (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Prior to the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, the U.S. was mainly a spectator during what would eventually be called World War I.
At the time, the conflict that was known as “The Great War and by optimists as “The War to End all Wars” was laying waste to a generation of young men and leaving many of Europe’s nations in ruins.
With new inventions such as submarines, machine guns, and poison gas being deployed in the battlefield, hundreds of thousands were killed in the early stages of the war. One of the new inventions to see use during the war were airplanes, which had only recently been invented, but showed great potential and were quickly used by both sides for scouting and combat missions.
Looking for adventure and hoping to make a name for themselves, a handful of American men volunteered to fight in the war and some joined the Lafayette Escadrille, so they could join the fight by flying for the French.
In the new film Flyboys, James Franco stars as Blaine Rawlings, a young man fleeing his family ranch in TX after an altercation with a financier who has foreclosed on his family home. Upon arriving in France, Blaine meets other Americans including Eugene (Abdul Salis), who has left a promising career as a boxer to give something back to his adoptive nation of France since due to a more tolerant society, the color of his skin has not held him back as much as it has in
America.
Under the command of Captain Thenault (Jean Reno) the squadron is trained and eventually sent into combat against the German forces where they learn the true nature and horrors of war firsthand as they have to deal with the very high mortality rate that faces pilots and the knowledge that each time they fly into battle, may very well be their last moments.
Blaine eventually meets a local French lady named Lucienne (Jennifer Decker), a shy French lady who cares for three young children after their parents were killed when their home was hit. The fact that the dead father was also her brother is added burden for Lucienne as she worries about losing those she cares for as the war wages on.
Despite her concerns, Lucienne becomes close to Blaine even though the war is a constant threat and keeps creating distances between them, especially when the German forces advance upon the village in which she lives.
Since this is a film about aviators, there are several scenes in the film of the various missions Blaine and his comrades undertook that are rendered with a mix of CGI and vintage aircraft from the era.
In the air, the action is engrossing and entertaining, but on the ground, much of the film drags as it has every cliché and war movie staple in the book thrown in as well as characters that are not well defined, and lack anything to make the audience really connect with them.
This is a real shame as there are some good points to the film, but at just over two hours running length, there is not enough chemistry or development with the characters to truly make the audience care about them or their fates.
The aerial scenes are well done, but in many ways remind me of Howard Hughes classic “Hell’s Angels” and vintage classics “Dawn Patrol” and“The Blue Max”
As it stands, the best thing going for the film are the flight sequences but the slow pacing, numerous clichés and bland characters keeps Flyboys grounded.
At the time, the conflict that was known as “The Great War and by optimists as “The War to End all Wars” was laying waste to a generation of young men and leaving many of Europe’s nations in ruins.
With new inventions such as submarines, machine guns, and poison gas being deployed in the battlefield, hundreds of thousands were killed in the early stages of the war. One of the new inventions to see use during the war were airplanes, which had only recently been invented, but showed great potential and were quickly used by both sides for scouting and combat missions.
Looking for adventure and hoping to make a name for themselves, a handful of American men volunteered to fight in the war and some joined the Lafayette Escadrille, so they could join the fight by flying for the French.
In the new film Flyboys, James Franco stars as Blaine Rawlings, a young man fleeing his family ranch in TX after an altercation with a financier who has foreclosed on his family home. Upon arriving in France, Blaine meets other Americans including Eugene (Abdul Salis), who has left a promising career as a boxer to give something back to his adoptive nation of France since due to a more tolerant society, the color of his skin has not held him back as much as it has in
America.
Under the command of Captain Thenault (Jean Reno) the squadron is trained and eventually sent into combat against the German forces where they learn the true nature and horrors of war firsthand as they have to deal with the very high mortality rate that faces pilots and the knowledge that each time they fly into battle, may very well be their last moments.
Blaine eventually meets a local French lady named Lucienne (Jennifer Decker), a shy French lady who cares for three young children after their parents were killed when their home was hit. The fact that the dead father was also her brother is added burden for Lucienne as she worries about losing those she cares for as the war wages on.
Despite her concerns, Lucienne becomes close to Blaine even though the war is a constant threat and keeps creating distances between them, especially when the German forces advance upon the village in which she lives.
Since this is a film about aviators, there are several scenes in the film of the various missions Blaine and his comrades undertook that are rendered with a mix of CGI and vintage aircraft from the era.
In the air, the action is engrossing and entertaining, but on the ground, much of the film drags as it has every cliché and war movie staple in the book thrown in as well as characters that are not well defined, and lack anything to make the audience really connect with them.
This is a real shame as there are some good points to the film, but at just over two hours running length, there is not enough chemistry or development with the characters to truly make the audience care about them or their fates.
The aerial scenes are well done, but in many ways remind me of Howard Hughes classic “Hell’s Angels” and vintage classics “Dawn Patrol” and“The Blue Max”
As it stands, the best thing going for the film are the flight sequences but the slow pacing, numerous clichés and bland characters keeps Flyboys grounded.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Oct 7, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Cloverfield Paradox is the third and (at time of writing) the last Cloverfield film and it's main purpose is to explain where Clover and his friends come from. Does it do this in an easy to follow, straight forward way that fits easily into the already established Cloverfield universe? Hell no.
The first film was a found footage monster movie and the second film was a psychological thriller that was loosely linked to the first so naturally the third film is a hard Sci-Fi set in the near future. The earth has used up most of it's resources and everyone is nearly at war, the last hope is the Cloverfield space-station which has the 'Shepard' beam, an experimental particle beam that, if it works, will produce an endless supply of energy. The lack of resources and looming war are the only problems, there are no monsters and there never were.
The Cloverfield Paradox mainly follows the crew of the space station and quickly turns into a Sci-Fi horror in a similar vain to 'Event Horizon'. Basically the crew activate the Shepard Beam, it works then crashes and the earth disappears. Then strange things start to happen. At the same time something happens on earth, there is an attack on America and a few people run around trying to find out what happens and one hides in a bunker similar to the one in 10 Cloverfield Lane. Meanwhile the crew of the Cloverfield try to find out where the earth is.
As a Sci-Fi, the Cloverfield Paradox works well, it uses just enough jargon and theoretical physics and as a horror it works well, killing off the cast in weird and wonderful ways. And as an explanation for Clover well SPOILER that's what attacked Earth, of course this is only reviled right at the end and there is no explanation to how they got to the past in the other film's. Except there is, about twenty minuets into the film, after everything has been set up but before everything goes wrong there is a news program shown on a monitor whilst the crew begin to start their experiments. The news show is interviewing the author of a book called 'The Cloverfield Paradox' and, in the interview the author explains everything from what is going to happen to how Clover and the other monsters appear on earth even though know one in the future knows anything about them, so pay attention.
One thing the all three Cloverfield films did well was all of the extra stuff. The original film started with tease trailers, infomercial's form company's seen in the film and fake news reels. This kind of marketing continued for all three films and other information was made available including one big link between Cloverfield and the Cloverfield Paradox. The last scene of the first film, the scene that was set before everything that happened with the couple by the beach shows something falling from the sky in the background, this is part of the Cloverfield space station.
With the revelation that the creatures now exist all through time a fourth film was rumoured - Overlord- however, even though the film was made by the same company and the same people it was never part of the Cloverfield universe and is/was meant to be the start of it's own franchise. Even though it could easily fit even as a ret con.
The first film was a found footage monster movie and the second film was a psychological thriller that was loosely linked to the first so naturally the third film is a hard Sci-Fi set in the near future. The earth has used up most of it's resources and everyone is nearly at war, the last hope is the Cloverfield space-station which has the 'Shepard' beam, an experimental particle beam that, if it works, will produce an endless supply of energy. The lack of resources and looming war are the only problems, there are no monsters and there never were.
The Cloverfield Paradox mainly follows the crew of the space station and quickly turns into a Sci-Fi horror in a similar vain to 'Event Horizon'. Basically the crew activate the Shepard Beam, it works then crashes and the earth disappears. Then strange things start to happen. At the same time something happens on earth, there is an attack on America and a few people run around trying to find out what happens and one hides in a bunker similar to the one in 10 Cloverfield Lane. Meanwhile the crew of the Cloverfield try to find out where the earth is.
As a Sci-Fi, the Cloverfield Paradox works well, it uses just enough jargon and theoretical physics and as a horror it works well, killing off the cast in weird and wonderful ways. And as an explanation for Clover well SPOILER that's what attacked Earth, of course this is only reviled right at the end and there is no explanation to how they got to the past in the other film's. Except there is, about twenty minuets into the film, after everything has been set up but before everything goes wrong there is a news program shown on a monitor whilst the crew begin to start their experiments. The news show is interviewing the author of a book called 'The Cloverfield Paradox' and, in the interview the author explains everything from what is going to happen to how Clover and the other monsters appear on earth even though know one in the future knows anything about them, so pay attention.
One thing the all three Cloverfield films did well was all of the extra stuff. The original film started with tease trailers, infomercial's form company's seen in the film and fake news reels. This kind of marketing continued for all three films and other information was made available including one big link between Cloverfield and the Cloverfield Paradox. The last scene of the first film, the scene that was set before everything that happened with the couple by the beach shows something falling from the sky in the background, this is part of the Cloverfield space station.
With the revelation that the creatures now exist all through time a fourth film was rumoured - Overlord- however, even though the film was made by the same company and the same people it was never part of the Cloverfield universe and is/was meant to be the start of it's own franchise. Even though it could easily fit even as a ret con.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 8-BIT CHRISTMAS (2021) in Movies
Dec 12, 2021
Charming, Nostalgic and HeartWarming
If I told you that I just watched a charming Holiday movie where the Narrator reminisced about a Christmas of his youth - when he was 10 or 11 - and the Narrator desperately wanted a special present brought to him by Santa - but said item is strictly forbidden in his household, so the Narrator heads off on an adventure to get this item, you would think I was talking about the classic Holiday perennial A CHRISTMAS STORY - and you would be wrong.
I’m speaking about the HBO MAX Original Film 8-BIT CHRISTMAS starring Neil Patrick Harris as the Narrator of the story that reminisces about his life as a 10-11 year old around the Holidays in the late 1980’s.
And, darn it all, if it doesn’t work well (despite my indignation that all they are doing is ripping off A CHRISTMAS STORY) for there is enough nostalgia and heart to melt the emotions of even the most miserly of Ebenezer Scrooge’s this holiday season.
Written by Kevin Jakubowski (based off his book) and Directed by Michael Dowse (the underrated comedy STUBER), 8-Bit Christmas tells the tale of 11 year old Jake Doyle who wants nothing more in this world than to receive the mother of all Christmas presents - a Nintendo 8 Bit system. Along with a “Goonies” collection of friends, Jake sets off to find this hard to find item - and convince his parents to get it for him for Christmas.
In the hands of young actor Winslow Fegley (Disney’s TIMMY FAILURE), young Jake is a pleasant enough protagonist to head off on this journey with. His ragtag group of friends are a group of generic nerds that pretty much check-off the “nerd friend group” list (and this is meant as a compliment). We spend quite a bit of time with these kids and they are a good enough group of kids to spend time with.
This film does hit a few of the same notes as A CHRISTMAS STORY, there is an obsessed, seemingly out of touch Dad, this time played by Steve Zahn (RESCUE DAWN) in a heart-warming portrayal and the coupon-cutting, cost saving Mom played by June Diane Raphael (FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL) who is putting up with it all. This film even has a younger sibling, this time a sister Lizzy, who wants her own elusive gift - a Cabbage Patch kid.
A highlight for me was the performance of Kathy Greenwood as the teacher with the constant sniffles. I know many a teacher and they almost ALWAYS have colds given to them from their charges.
This film is a fine post card of Chicago in the late 1980s and skewers (and honors) the pop-fads of the time (complete with fashion and styling) and is an entertaining enough 2 hour escape during the Holidays.
Oh, and did I mention that at one point in this film, I had to dab at my eyes with a tissue? Yes, despite my skepticism, this film managed to touch my heart even though I fought like crazy to deny that.
If you’re looking for a fun family entertainment this Holiday season, 8-BIT CHRISTMAS can fill the bill nicely.
Letter Grade: B+
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I’m speaking about the HBO MAX Original Film 8-BIT CHRISTMAS starring Neil Patrick Harris as the Narrator of the story that reminisces about his life as a 10-11 year old around the Holidays in the late 1980’s.
And, darn it all, if it doesn’t work well (despite my indignation that all they are doing is ripping off A CHRISTMAS STORY) for there is enough nostalgia and heart to melt the emotions of even the most miserly of Ebenezer Scrooge’s this holiday season.
Written by Kevin Jakubowski (based off his book) and Directed by Michael Dowse (the underrated comedy STUBER), 8-Bit Christmas tells the tale of 11 year old Jake Doyle who wants nothing more in this world than to receive the mother of all Christmas presents - a Nintendo 8 Bit system. Along with a “Goonies” collection of friends, Jake sets off to find this hard to find item - and convince his parents to get it for him for Christmas.
In the hands of young actor Winslow Fegley (Disney’s TIMMY FAILURE), young Jake is a pleasant enough protagonist to head off on this journey with. His ragtag group of friends are a group of generic nerds that pretty much check-off the “nerd friend group” list (and this is meant as a compliment). We spend quite a bit of time with these kids and they are a good enough group of kids to spend time with.
This film does hit a few of the same notes as A CHRISTMAS STORY, there is an obsessed, seemingly out of touch Dad, this time played by Steve Zahn (RESCUE DAWN) in a heart-warming portrayal and the coupon-cutting, cost saving Mom played by June Diane Raphael (FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL) who is putting up with it all. This film even has a younger sibling, this time a sister Lizzy, who wants her own elusive gift - a Cabbage Patch kid.
A highlight for me was the performance of Kathy Greenwood as the teacher with the constant sniffles. I know many a teacher and they almost ALWAYS have colds given to them from their charges.
This film is a fine post card of Chicago in the late 1980s and skewers (and honors) the pop-fads of the time (complete with fashion and styling) and is an entertaining enough 2 hour escape during the Holidays.
Oh, and did I mention that at one point in this film, I had to dab at my eyes with a tissue? Yes, despite my skepticism, this film managed to touch my heart even though I fought like crazy to deny that.
If you’re looking for a fun family entertainment this Holiday season, 8-BIT CHRISTMAS can fill the bill nicely.
Letter Grade: B+
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated What Once Was Mine in Books
Oct 25, 2021
𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒇 𝑹𝒂𝒑𝒖𝒏𝒛𝒆𝒍’𝒔 𝒎𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒅𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒌 𝒂 𝒑𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓?
As you will all know by now, I am in love with the Twisted Tales series and have to read each installment as they are released. What Once was Mine is the 12th Twisted Tale book and the 7th written by Liz Braswell so to say I was excited would be an understatement.
As always, TT books come with a tag line to lure you in and this one is “What if Rapunzel’s mother drank a potion from the wrong flower?” Yes, instead of the golden Sundrop flower, the ailing pregnant queen is mistakenly given a potion using the Moondrop flower, resulting in a silver-haired princess whose power kills rather than heals!
Of course, that casts the whole locking the princess in a tower concept into an entirely new light! However, many of the other elements remain the same as Disney’s ‘Tangled’ movie: Gothel is Rapunzel’s captor and “mother”, Flynn steals a crown and is on the run from the Stabbington brothers and Rapunzel is desperate to see the floating lights.
What Liz Braswell manages to do (very well, in my opinion) is to maintain all these similarities, keeping her readers rooted to the original story but also to bend the original fairytale into something a bit more mature, a bit darker and, in some cases, a bit more real.
“𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚𝙙, 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙙𝙨, 𝙍𝙖𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙡”
What Once was Mine is written from Rapunzel’s perspective. Now, this may be an obvious choice, but it also gives Braswell the opportunity to show her protagonist in a slightly more mature light than we are used to. Yes, Rapunzel is scatty, enthusiastic and teeth-grittingly cheerful about everything but she also believes she is dangerous and that she belongs in the tower for the safety of others.
Rapunzel has always been told that her hair killed her parents and that Gothel has been charged with her care and protection. However, what I really enjoyed about Braswell’s Rapunzel is that, although she begins with the same blind faith in Gothel as she has in the movie, she soon develops an inner turmoil of emotions with regards to her captor, questioning where she spends her days and recognising the little digs often made at the daughter’s expense.
As her journey continues, Rapunzel observes other mother-daughter relationships and her doubt and distrust of Gothel begins to build as a result. Lords, ladies and bandits alike are hunting for Rapunzel in order to claim her as their prize but this couldn’t be orchestrated by her mother, the only family she has ever known, could it?
“𝘽𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙝 𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙗𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛, 𝙍𝙖𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙡. 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩’𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙖𝙧 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙜𝙞𝙛𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙛𝙡𝙤𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙨.”
I have conflicting feelings when it comes to the darker elements of What Once Was Mine. The inclusion of the very real Countess Bathory took me by surprise and was quite gruesome in places: not a problem for a grown-up Disney nerd but I’m not sure whether I will be passing this one along to the Mini Bookworm any time soon.
There is also the narrator of the story: a brother making up an alternative Rapunzel story for his sister while she is undergoing chemo. I understand this is an emotive topic for the author and I almost got it as a tool for the story-telling, enabling the use of quite modern, colloquial terms such as “murderhair” and enabling the creative inclusion of characters such as Maximus.
I really wanted this technique to be profound and make the story mean more, such as fairytales having an important place in the modern world for example. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat for me: it was an interesting tweak but it didn’t make me feel as much as I wanted it to.
It is not all doom and gloom though, Rapunzel’s perspective of the world provides comic moments: her (limited) knowledge of the world comes from the 37 books that she owns, leading to a moose that is definitely a squirrel and a cat which acts suspiciously like a fox. We are also not deprived of the regulars of The Snuggly Duckling, indeed all of your favourites from the film turn up for this novel.
Braswell’s characterisation when it came to Flynn was spot on in my opinion. The observation by Rapunzel that there is the “real” Flynn and then there is the charming, roguish mask he uses was perfect! Gina was also a great addition, desperately trying to be an adventurer/criminal and not being taken seriously just because she is a girl. The relationship between her and Flynn was adorable and, of course, Gina’s mother is just legendary.
“𝙎𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙨; 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣 𝙪𝙣𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙙 𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙘𝙮”
The writing style isn’t for everyone and, I must admit, this is the twisted tale which I have probably put down and walked away from the most. However, if you can stick it through the slow sections the story is really worth it and provides a much-admired evolution of the Disney Princess.
Don’t get me wrong - in the animated movie Rapunzel is great and all but by the end she is a princess with a haircut and a smouldering husband. Braswell’s Rapunzel has magic that she needs to study, understand and control, she is a future Queen in the making and simply has more of a purpose than her animated counterpart.
“𝙎𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖 𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙗𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙣 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣”
What Once Was Mine brings a whole new depth to the characters of Disney’s Tangled. It gives us a new (frankly, disgusting) villain alongside all our favourite characters and definitely presents a creative twist on the traditional story. Don’t worry, Rapunzel still gets her Happily Ever After, but she fought a little harder for it this time around!
As you will all know by now, I am in love with the Twisted Tales series and have to read each installment as they are released. What Once was Mine is the 12th Twisted Tale book and the 7th written by Liz Braswell so to say I was excited would be an understatement.
As always, TT books come with a tag line to lure you in and this one is “What if Rapunzel’s mother drank a potion from the wrong flower?” Yes, instead of the golden Sundrop flower, the ailing pregnant queen is mistakenly given a potion using the Moondrop flower, resulting in a silver-haired princess whose power kills rather than heals!
Of course, that casts the whole locking the princess in a tower concept into an entirely new light! However, many of the other elements remain the same as Disney’s ‘Tangled’ movie: Gothel is Rapunzel’s captor and “mother”, Flynn steals a crown and is on the run from the Stabbington brothers and Rapunzel is desperate to see the floating lights.
What Liz Braswell manages to do (very well, in my opinion) is to maintain all these similarities, keeping her readers rooted to the original story but also to bend the original fairytale into something a bit more mature, a bit darker and, in some cases, a bit more real.
“𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚𝙙, 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙙𝙨, 𝙍𝙖𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙡”
What Once was Mine is written from Rapunzel’s perspective. Now, this may be an obvious choice, but it also gives Braswell the opportunity to show her protagonist in a slightly more mature light than we are used to. Yes, Rapunzel is scatty, enthusiastic and teeth-grittingly cheerful about everything but she also believes she is dangerous and that she belongs in the tower for the safety of others.
Rapunzel has always been told that her hair killed her parents and that Gothel has been charged with her care and protection. However, what I really enjoyed about Braswell’s Rapunzel is that, although she begins with the same blind faith in Gothel as she has in the movie, she soon develops an inner turmoil of emotions with regards to her captor, questioning where she spends her days and recognising the little digs often made at the daughter’s expense.
As her journey continues, Rapunzel observes other mother-daughter relationships and her doubt and distrust of Gothel begins to build as a result. Lords, ladies and bandits alike are hunting for Rapunzel in order to claim her as their prize but this couldn’t be orchestrated by her mother, the only family she has ever known, could it?
“𝘽𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙝 𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙗𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛, 𝙍𝙖𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙡. 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩’𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙖𝙧 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙜𝙞𝙛𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙛𝙡𝙤𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙨.”
I have conflicting feelings when it comes to the darker elements of What Once Was Mine. The inclusion of the very real Countess Bathory took me by surprise and was quite gruesome in places: not a problem for a grown-up Disney nerd but I’m not sure whether I will be passing this one along to the Mini Bookworm any time soon.
There is also the narrator of the story: a brother making up an alternative Rapunzel story for his sister while she is undergoing chemo. I understand this is an emotive topic for the author and I almost got it as a tool for the story-telling, enabling the use of quite modern, colloquial terms such as “murderhair” and enabling the creative inclusion of characters such as Maximus.
I really wanted this technique to be profound and make the story mean more, such as fairytales having an important place in the modern world for example. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat for me: it was an interesting tweak but it didn’t make me feel as much as I wanted it to.
It is not all doom and gloom though, Rapunzel’s perspective of the world provides comic moments: her (limited) knowledge of the world comes from the 37 books that she owns, leading to a moose that is definitely a squirrel and a cat which acts suspiciously like a fox. We are also not deprived of the regulars of The Snuggly Duckling, indeed all of your favourites from the film turn up for this novel.
Braswell’s characterisation when it came to Flynn was spot on in my opinion. The observation by Rapunzel that there is the “real” Flynn and then there is the charming, roguish mask he uses was perfect! Gina was also a great addition, desperately trying to be an adventurer/criminal and not being taken seriously just because she is a girl. The relationship between her and Flynn was adorable and, of course, Gina’s mother is just legendary.
“𝙎𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙨; 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣 𝙪𝙣𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙙 𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙘𝙮”
The writing style isn’t for everyone and, I must admit, this is the twisted tale which I have probably put down and walked away from the most. However, if you can stick it through the slow sections the story is really worth it and provides a much-admired evolution of the Disney Princess.
Don’t get me wrong - in the animated movie Rapunzel is great and all but by the end she is a princess with a haircut and a smouldering husband. Braswell’s Rapunzel has magic that she needs to study, understand and control, she is a future Queen in the making and simply has more of a purpose than her animated counterpart.
“𝙎𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖 𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙗𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙣 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣”
What Once Was Mine brings a whole new depth to the characters of Disney’s Tangled. It gives us a new (frankly, disgusting) villain alongside all our favourite characters and definitely presents a creative twist on the traditional story. Don’t worry, Rapunzel still gets her Happily Ever After, but she fought a little harder for it this time around!
Cocktails - Virtual Drink Mixer and Recipes
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
App
Another cocktail or recipe app? Virtual reality! Incredibly simple and unique! Mix Cocktails,...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Apr 16, 2018
Not a Masterpiece, but has a Masterful performance
With the DARK KNIGHT, Christopher Nolan kicks his movie's up a notch. His previous films were critical - but not necessarily commercial - successes. With the 2nd of his Batman trilogy, Nolan swings for the seats and in more ways than one, hits a home run.
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)