Search
Search results
Joe Elliott recommended Every Picture Tells a Story by Rod Stewart in Music (curated)
Awix (3310 KP) rated I, Claudius in TV
Aug 27, 2019 (Updated Aug 27, 2019)
It is entirely possible some modern viewers may take issue with this hugely acclaimed and influential drama simply because it was made entirely on videotape in TV studios, and some of the 1970s old-age make-up has not, well, aged well. I can't help but feel a bit sorry for these people, for this is one of the great TV treats of all time: the aged Emperor Claudius sits down to retell his family history, a horrifying tale of jealousy, lust, treachery, sexual perversion, murder, and insanity (quite how much of it is actually true is another issue).
A very unusual story by any standards: the main character isn't even born until well into the first episode, and the main villain dies of old age halfway through. Best to ignore the odd structure and enjoy the vicious black comedy the tale is dripping with, with an extraordinary cast making the most of a set of witty, sophisticated scripts. Hard to choose who shines the most: Brian Blessed is restrained as Augustus, Sian Phillips chilling as the psychopathic Livia, John Hurt hilarious and terrifying at the same time as the lunatic Caligula. Derek Jacobi carries the whole thing with warmth, wit and pathos. One of the masterpieces of TV drama.
A very unusual story by any standards: the main character isn't even born until well into the first episode, and the main villain dies of old age halfway through. Best to ignore the odd structure and enjoy the vicious black comedy the tale is dripping with, with an extraordinary cast making the most of a set of witty, sophisticated scripts. Hard to choose who shines the most: Brian Blessed is restrained as Augustus, Sian Phillips chilling as the psychopathic Livia, John Hurt hilarious and terrifying at the same time as the lunatic Caligula. Derek Jacobi carries the whole thing with warmth, wit and pathos. One of the masterpieces of TV drama.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Handbook of Paranormal Powers in Books
Jun 2, 2019
I have always believed in the paranormal, but I am careful not to take everything at face value. When I picked up this book, I unfortunately took it at its face value, thinking that it was about how people developed these paranormal abilities and the things that they achieved with them.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
David McK (3219 KP) rated Troy (2004) in Movies
Apr 28, 2020
Following the success of "Gladiator" in 2000, I was expecting Hollywood to resurrect the old sword and sandals movies of yore, and for their to be a glut of the same.
At the time of writing this review (2020), there was actually surprisingly few such films: of the top of my head, I can only really think of "Robin Hood", "Kingdom of Heaven", and this.
With quite a few big names in its cast - Brad Pitt, Sean Bean, Orlando Bloom, Peter O'Toole and Eric Bana to name a few - this retells the story of the siege of Troy (although said siege doesn't seem to last as long as originally told), following Paris (Orlando Bloom) elopement with the wife of Menelaus of Troy (Brendan Gleeson) Helen (Diane Kruger), giving an excuse for Agememnon (a scenery chewing Brian Cox) to go to war against that city.
While this does have some bruising action scenes - the beach landing, and Achilles Vs Hector are my personal favourite - unfortunately large swathes of the film are bogged down by necessary exposition, and I have to say that this version of Helen of Sparta (or Troy) face may be able to launch a dinghy or two, but not the fleet of a thousand ships that she is described as in the original texts (where she is said to be the most beautiful woman in the world).
At the time of writing this review (2020), there was actually surprisingly few such films: of the top of my head, I can only really think of "Robin Hood", "Kingdom of Heaven", and this.
With quite a few big names in its cast - Brad Pitt, Sean Bean, Orlando Bloom, Peter O'Toole and Eric Bana to name a few - this retells the story of the siege of Troy (although said siege doesn't seem to last as long as originally told), following Paris (Orlando Bloom) elopement with the wife of Menelaus of Troy (Brendan Gleeson) Helen (Diane Kruger), giving an excuse for Agememnon (a scenery chewing Brian Cox) to go to war against that city.
While this does have some bruising action scenes - the beach landing, and Achilles Vs Hector are my personal favourite - unfortunately large swathes of the film are bogged down by necessary exposition, and I have to say that this version of Helen of Sparta (or Troy) face may be able to launch a dinghy or two, but not the fleet of a thousand ships that she is described as in the original texts (where she is said to be the most beautiful woman in the world).
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Our Little Cruelties in Books
Dec 17, 2020
William, Brian, and Luke Drumm--three boys each born a year apart. William becomes a successful movie producer. Luke, a famous singer. And Brian, the steady middle brother, watches over careers, money, and their mother. But none of the brothers are as successful and happy as they appear--scarred by their traumatic childhood and their constant attempts to gain the attention of their mother. Now, the brothers are gathered together again: but only two are alive.
"All three of the Drumm brothers were at the funeral. But only one of them was in the coffin."
I made a lot of mistakes with this book. First, I thought I loved Liz Nugent, but then I realized I had her confused with another writer, and that I've never read any of her books. Next, I thought this would be more of a true, suspenseful mystery. It is not.
I feel bad, but this book was not for me. It started out slowly and just never got better. The plot drags on and on. While it is somewhat a mystery about a dead brother (which Drumm has died?), it's mostly a character-driven tale about three awful brothers. Because these three men are terrible and despicable, and I found it nearly impossible to become interested in them or their stories.
The book is told in chunks--from the perspective of each brother. Within their parts, their stories go back and forth in time. It's hard to keep track of the passing of time, especially as the book progresses.
This novel could provide in-depth perspective on mental illness and the impact our parents can have on our lives, but so much of that nuance gets lost in our characters and their abject hatefulness. There is little redemption to be had here. I had twinges of sympathies for the brothers, but, at times, I wasn't sure I would care if they were dead. They are truly evil sometimes.
Overall, this book just didn't work for me. I wasn't interested in the characters, and I wanted this to be a different type of story. Many others found this much more captivating and enjoyed the character driven style, so it may work better for you. 2 stars.
"All three of the Drumm brothers were at the funeral. But only one of them was in the coffin."
I made a lot of mistakes with this book. First, I thought I loved Liz Nugent, but then I realized I had her confused with another writer, and that I've never read any of her books. Next, I thought this would be more of a true, suspenseful mystery. It is not.
I feel bad, but this book was not for me. It started out slowly and just never got better. The plot drags on and on. While it is somewhat a mystery about a dead brother (which Drumm has died?), it's mostly a character-driven tale about three awful brothers. Because these three men are terrible and despicable, and I found it nearly impossible to become interested in them or their stories.
The book is told in chunks--from the perspective of each brother. Within their parts, their stories go back and forth in time. It's hard to keep track of the passing of time, especially as the book progresses.
This novel could provide in-depth perspective on mental illness and the impact our parents can have on our lives, but so much of that nuance gets lost in our characters and their abject hatefulness. There is little redemption to be had here. I had twinges of sympathies for the brothers, but, at times, I wasn't sure I would care if they were dead. They are truly evil sometimes.
Overall, this book just didn't work for me. I wasn't interested in the characters, and I wanted this to be a different type of story. Many others found this much more captivating and enjoyed the character driven style, so it may work better for you. 2 stars.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Return of the Living Dead 3 (1993) in Movies
Feb 28, 2021
On the surface, Return of the Living Dead III may seem like another zombie crawling splatter fest from genre favourite Brian Yuzna, but underneath the copious amounts of gore, is a tragic and often melancholy story about forbidden love, and hiding ones true nature. Sort of like the principles of King Kong, masquerading as a gory zombie flick, with a dash of Romeo & Juliet.
This wouldn't work quite so well if it wasn't for an equally menacing, touching, and occasionally emotional performance from Melinda Clarke, playing a character who is wrestling with her urge to consume flesh after being bought back to life following a fatal motorbike accident. Watching her humanity slowly vanish whilst her boyfriend (J. Trevor Edmund) tries to protect the woman he loves is genuinely sad. The rest of the cast are fine, but Clarke is the glue that holds everything together, whilst giving us an incredibly memorable horror anti-hero.
The effects work done on the various creatures and the subsequent gore is great. All done practically, and when it comes to the more visceral moments, this movie doesn't fuck about. It also builds up as it goes on. The last 20 minutes are absolutely nuts in almost every way.
ROTLD3 came highly recommended to me as a horror fan, and I would pass on that recommendation wholeheartedly. A hugely bloody film, with a whole bunch of heart.
This wouldn't work quite so well if it wasn't for an equally menacing, touching, and occasionally emotional performance from Melinda Clarke, playing a character who is wrestling with her urge to consume flesh after being bought back to life following a fatal motorbike accident. Watching her humanity slowly vanish whilst her boyfriend (J. Trevor Edmund) tries to protect the woman he loves is genuinely sad. The rest of the cast are fine, but Clarke is the glue that holds everything together, whilst giving us an incredibly memorable horror anti-hero.
The effects work done on the various creatures and the subsequent gore is great. All done practically, and when it comes to the more visceral moments, this movie doesn't fuck about. It also builds up as it goes on. The last 20 minutes are absolutely nuts in almost every way.
ROTLD3 came highly recommended to me as a horror fan, and I would pass on that recommendation wholeheartedly. A hugely bloody film, with a whole bunch of heart.
Bee (3 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Feb 9, 2019
A good film, not a good biopic
Contains spoilers, click to show
After all my friends have been obsessing over this film, I have finally watched it.
And I have to say, I was disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it is a good film with great visuals, the reshoot of Live Aid was brilliant, Rami Malek was at his best and the singing of Marc Martel was stunning.
But the film, which is supposed to be a biopic blatantly disregards reality or changes it dramatically for a better cinematic effect. While this not a rare thing, the affect of Brian May and Roger Taylor having so much control over the film simply resulted in a very opinionated film that, at least for me, does not do justice to Freddie Mercury or Queen.
The whole point of it being a biopic is lost when facts like how the band met or how Freddie started singing are completely changed, and even small ones, like his proposal, or crucial ones, like the well-known scandal of Live Aid are changed so much.
I did not judge the film based on this, but I think it's also important to note how the studio awarded director billing to Bryan Singer who abandoned the shoot two-thirds along and left Dexter Fletcher to try to pick up the pieces, finish the shoot, editing and any extra shoots. It's only an insult that after all this, they also put Singer forward for awards.
So I do admit that it is an entertaining and good film, but does not do justice to Mercury and can hardly be considered to be a good biopic.
And I have to say, I was disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it is a good film with great visuals, the reshoot of Live Aid was brilliant, Rami Malek was at his best and the singing of Marc Martel was stunning.
But the film, which is supposed to be a biopic blatantly disregards reality or changes it dramatically for a better cinematic effect. While this not a rare thing, the affect of Brian May and Roger Taylor having so much control over the film simply resulted in a very opinionated film that, at least for me, does not do justice to Freddie Mercury or Queen.
The whole point of it being a biopic is lost when facts like how the band met or how Freddie started singing are completely changed, and even small ones, like his proposal, or crucial ones, like the well-known scandal of Live Aid are changed so much.
I did not judge the film based on this, but I think it's also important to note how the studio awarded director billing to Bryan Singer who abandoned the shoot two-thirds along and left Dexter Fletcher to try to pick up the pieces, finish the shoot, editing and any extra shoots. It's only an insult that after all this, they also put Singer forward for awards.
So I do admit that it is an entertaining and good film, but does not do justice to Mercury and can hardly be considered to be a good biopic.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Fame and fortune and everything that goes with it”.
Sometimes a trailer generates a bit of a buzz of excitement with a cinema audience and the first showings of the trailer for “Bohemian Rhapsody” was a case in point. But would the film live up to the potential?
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Videodrome: Days of O'Blivion in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book from the author in exchange for an honest review</i>
Written as a prequel to David Cronenberg’s horror film, Lee McGeorge explores the potential scenario that led up to the surrealist events in <i>Videodrome</i>. This short story is more science fiction than horror in nature as it only builds up the background and setting to the point in which the film begins.
<i>Days of O’Blivion</i>, as well as the original film, is set during the cold war between the US and USSR. It is a period of time threatened with atomic weapons of mass destruction, and the competition to create the most superior technology. In this particular scenario, two men: Professor Brian Olivier and his friend Barry have been experimenting with special television technology resulting in interesting outcomes. Their product, which they name <i>Veraceo</i> –a compound of Veracity and Video –, has the ability to make everyone believe what they are seeing on screen to be true. This could be a big boon to advertising establishments, however cause dire consequences if found in the wrong hands, i.e. communists.
Readers, including those unfamiliar with the film, should be able to ascertain several problems this technological advancement could pose, making it all the more foreboding when an unknown but powerful company pays out thousands of dollars to become partners with Brian and Barry. What makes it all the more ominous is Brian’s hesitancy in accepting the offer in contrast with Barry’s excitement. As the technology is adapted further it becomes clear that they are dealing with very dangerous concepts and people – hallucinations being only the smallest of side affects.
Although Lee McGeorge is using an already existing story, he makes this prequel his own by exploring the hows and whys <i>Veraceo</i> came to be developed. His narrative is accurate in terms of the way it builds up to coincide with the film script without damaging or giving new meaning to Cronenberg’s original storyline.
Although not horror as in scary, <i>Days of O’Blivion</i> contains many horrific scenes. Most of these are pornographic in nature and rather disturbing, particularly more so as the story progresses – something that lessened the general enjoyment of the book. The overall nature of the book (and film, probably) may appeal more towards a male market, particularly those with a less delicate temperament.
As with his previous books, which also incorporate pre-existing ideas, Lee McGeorge writes well in a way that engages the reader and even interests those without prior knowledge of the subject. There is also additional digital content alongside this book. Those lucky enough to own a paper back copy will be able to access these using an NFC enabled device.
Written as a prequel to David Cronenberg’s horror film, Lee McGeorge explores the potential scenario that led up to the surrealist events in <i>Videodrome</i>. This short story is more science fiction than horror in nature as it only builds up the background and setting to the point in which the film begins.
<i>Days of O’Blivion</i>, as well as the original film, is set during the cold war between the US and USSR. It is a period of time threatened with atomic weapons of mass destruction, and the competition to create the most superior technology. In this particular scenario, two men: Professor Brian Olivier and his friend Barry have been experimenting with special television technology resulting in interesting outcomes. Their product, which they name <i>Veraceo</i> –a compound of Veracity and Video –, has the ability to make everyone believe what they are seeing on screen to be true. This could be a big boon to advertising establishments, however cause dire consequences if found in the wrong hands, i.e. communists.
Readers, including those unfamiliar with the film, should be able to ascertain several problems this technological advancement could pose, making it all the more foreboding when an unknown but powerful company pays out thousands of dollars to become partners with Brian and Barry. What makes it all the more ominous is Brian’s hesitancy in accepting the offer in contrast with Barry’s excitement. As the technology is adapted further it becomes clear that they are dealing with very dangerous concepts and people – hallucinations being only the smallest of side affects.
Although Lee McGeorge is using an already existing story, he makes this prequel his own by exploring the hows and whys <i>Veraceo</i> came to be developed. His narrative is accurate in terms of the way it builds up to coincide with the film script without damaging or giving new meaning to Cronenberg’s original storyline.
Although not horror as in scary, <i>Days of O’Blivion</i> contains many horrific scenes. Most of these are pornographic in nature and rather disturbing, particularly more so as the story progresses – something that lessened the general enjoyment of the book. The overall nature of the book (and film, probably) may appeal more towards a male market, particularly those with a less delicate temperament.
As with his previous books, which also incorporate pre-existing ideas, Lee McGeorge writes well in a way that engages the reader and even interests those without prior knowledge of the subject. There is also additional digital content alongside this book. Those lucky enough to own a paper back copy will be able to access these using an NFC enabled device.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
How many of these reviews are going to start with “Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?” A lot I am willing to bet. The thing is, it’s a good way to start. Bohemian Rhapsody has been a highly anticipated film for many years. I remember back when they were considering Johnny Depp for Freddie Mercury. Then it was Sasha Baren Cohen. And then they announced Rami Malek, and a majority of the country went, “Who?” Rami Malek is mostly known for his work as the lead in the USA Network series Mr. Robot. He got his start in the Night at the Museum series, and has scene big screen time in Need for Speed and, most recently, Papillion alongside Charlie Hunnam. I think it’s safe to say that after November 2, 2018, people will definitely know who he is.
Named for Queen’s most successful song in their portfolio, Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of Freddie Mercury and how he rose from being a baggage boy at Heathrow, to a literal rock legend. We see how the band Queen was formed, how they got their name, how they made it big, and what made Queen… well Queen. Rami Malek delivers a powerful performance as the front man of the legendary band. For me, it started off a little shaky at first (coming from someone who is fan of Malek), but he quickly made the role his own and personified the late Mercury like no other can. Even Mercury’s own sister saw Malek in full costume and said, “There’s my Freddie.”
Not to downplay the rest of the cast. Rounding at the rest of the band is Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon, Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All delivered powerful performances in their own right, and the chemistry between the 4 actors is undeniable. Veterans Aidan Gillen (as John Reid) and Tom Hollander (Jim Beach) deliver in their supporting roles, as does Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin. If some of these names do not seem familiar, get ready to learn a lot of the background of Queen in their rise, fall, and then rise again. Also, Mike Myers makes an appearance for a fun cameo as Ray Foster.
Clearly a majority of the film’s score revolves around the band’s expansive portfolio. But it wasn’t just the in your face, obvious music that was there. They did a great job with subtle melodies or bars from the band’s repertoire hanging in the background of impactful scenes throughout the film. Sometimes you’ll miss it, sometimes it’s obvious, and sometimes it might just make you cry.
The story begins with Mercury meeting Taylor and May, and ends with the ever-famous Live-Aid in 1985. While the film is essentially a love-story dedicated to Mercury, I feel it may have left out the rest of the members of the band. We see May, Taylor and Deacon, but we know little about their outside lives other than fleeting statements about their wives and kids, and what they were studying in university prior to Queen taking off. It’s a shame because Queen was not just about Mercury. The film did a really good job stating this, showing how they all contribute, all support each other, and how they are all different. But the focus is still on one man. Queen, the rock band, is an entity. Not an individual. But, I understand the decision behind the path that was chosen. Mercury, to many, was the embodiment of Queen. I am just glad the movie did put out there that he didn’t feel that way.
All of that aside, this film was fantastic. I have been a fan of Queen since I was in diapers, despite a majority of the band’s career having taken place before I was born. It was good to see this story told on screen, though slightly dramatized at points. It was an excellent telling of the story, and people may learn a lot about Freddie Mercury, like his love of cats, and who the love of his life is. Unless you’re absolutely cold-hearted, expect to get goosebumps as you progress through the band’s rise to the top, and to laugh as you how they interacted and developed their music. The movie is not without flaws, but they are so minor that looking past them is easy. Enjoy the film. Enjoy the music. Rock on.
Named for Queen’s most successful song in their portfolio, Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of Freddie Mercury and how he rose from being a baggage boy at Heathrow, to a literal rock legend. We see how the band Queen was formed, how they got their name, how they made it big, and what made Queen… well Queen. Rami Malek delivers a powerful performance as the front man of the legendary band. For me, it started off a little shaky at first (coming from someone who is fan of Malek), but he quickly made the role his own and personified the late Mercury like no other can. Even Mercury’s own sister saw Malek in full costume and said, “There’s my Freddie.”
Not to downplay the rest of the cast. Rounding at the rest of the band is Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon, Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All delivered powerful performances in their own right, and the chemistry between the 4 actors is undeniable. Veterans Aidan Gillen (as John Reid) and Tom Hollander (Jim Beach) deliver in their supporting roles, as does Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin. If some of these names do not seem familiar, get ready to learn a lot of the background of Queen in their rise, fall, and then rise again. Also, Mike Myers makes an appearance for a fun cameo as Ray Foster.
Clearly a majority of the film’s score revolves around the band’s expansive portfolio. But it wasn’t just the in your face, obvious music that was there. They did a great job with subtle melodies or bars from the band’s repertoire hanging in the background of impactful scenes throughout the film. Sometimes you’ll miss it, sometimes it’s obvious, and sometimes it might just make you cry.
The story begins with Mercury meeting Taylor and May, and ends with the ever-famous Live-Aid in 1985. While the film is essentially a love-story dedicated to Mercury, I feel it may have left out the rest of the members of the band. We see May, Taylor and Deacon, but we know little about their outside lives other than fleeting statements about their wives and kids, and what they were studying in university prior to Queen taking off. It’s a shame because Queen was not just about Mercury. The film did a really good job stating this, showing how they all contribute, all support each other, and how they are all different. But the focus is still on one man. Queen, the rock band, is an entity. Not an individual. But, I understand the decision behind the path that was chosen. Mercury, to many, was the embodiment of Queen. I am just glad the movie did put out there that he didn’t feel that way.
All of that aside, this film was fantastic. I have been a fan of Queen since I was in diapers, despite a majority of the band’s career having taken place before I was born. It was good to see this story told on screen, though slightly dramatized at points. It was an excellent telling of the story, and people may learn a lot about Freddie Mercury, like his love of cats, and who the love of his life is. Unless you’re absolutely cold-hearted, expect to get goosebumps as you progress through the band’s rise to the top, and to laugh as you how they interacted and developed their music. The movie is not without flaws, but they are so minor that looking past them is easy. Enjoy the film. Enjoy the music. Rock on.