Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Scrappy Little Nobody in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Anna Kendrick has been acting (and singing) since childhood, and her autobiography chronicles her growth as an actress and person, as told in little snippets and essays. Grouped in assorted themes, we hear from various stages of Anna's life, spanning her childhood to present day, and learn how Anna, a tiny scrappy kid, became a famous, Oscar-nominated actress. The book touches on her fame, as well as her personal thoughts and feelings.
I've always enjoyed Kendrick and have seen several of her films (and heard her sing about a million times, thanks to my young children and the popularity of the film, <i>Trolls</i>) but didn't know a lot about her early career. Her autobiography does a good job of filling in some of the gaps of Anna's childhood career (working on Broadway at twelve - who knew?!), but isn't told in any chronological order, so we don't get a sense of any real span of her career from Point A to B. Most of the book is told in short little bits. Many of them are quite funny stories, and there are some truly laugh out loud moments. In many cases, Kendrick is a very relatable person, who seems like the type of friend you'd like to hang out with. At other points, she seemed a bit whiny, and for me, the book spent too much time with her protesting about some of the travails of being in the celebrity industry. I can only take so much "woe is me" from famous people who write books about their lives.
The book is on more solid ground when we're reading about Anna's early life, where you gain a true admiration for her talent, and with her silly and snarky stories about her misanthropic personality (misanthropes unite!). Still, the jumping back and forth in time makes it hard to get a true trace on the arc of her life at times, and beyond some of the complaining and expounding on the travails of award shows, press junkets, and the like, there wasn't as much about her post-fame life as I was interested in.
If you like Kendrick's films, or her twitter feed, you'll probably enjoy the book and its organization, even if you find yourself wishing for a little more at the end. She's led an interesting life so far, and I'm sure another autobiography down the road would be quite intriguing.
I've always enjoyed Kendrick and have seen several of her films (and heard her sing about a million times, thanks to my young children and the popularity of the film, <i>Trolls</i>) but didn't know a lot about her early career. Her autobiography does a good job of filling in some of the gaps of Anna's childhood career (working on Broadway at twelve - who knew?!), but isn't told in any chronological order, so we don't get a sense of any real span of her career from Point A to B. Most of the book is told in short little bits. Many of them are quite funny stories, and there are some truly laugh out loud moments. In many cases, Kendrick is a very relatable person, who seems like the type of friend you'd like to hang out with. At other points, she seemed a bit whiny, and for me, the book spent too much time with her protesting about some of the travails of being in the celebrity industry. I can only take so much "woe is me" from famous people who write books about their lives.
The book is on more solid ground when we're reading about Anna's early life, where you gain a true admiration for her talent, and with her silly and snarky stories about her misanthropic personality (misanthropes unite!). Still, the jumping back and forth in time makes it hard to get a true trace on the arc of her life at times, and beyond some of the complaining and expounding on the travails of award shows, press junkets, and the like, there wasn't as much about her post-fame life as I was interested in.
If you like Kendrick's films, or her twitter feed, you'll probably enjoy the book and its organization, even if you find yourself wishing for a little more at the end. She's led an interesting life so far, and I'm sure another autobiography down the road would be quite intriguing.
Carma (21 KP) rated Bad Reputation (Bad Bachelors, #2) in Books
Jun 17, 2019
Bad Reputation by Stefanie London is the first book Ive read by this author after meeting her briefly at a reader event in June 2018. Bad Reputation is the 2nd book in this series but not having read the first one before diving into this one hasnt really affected my enjoyment of this novel. The theme of the first 2 books centers around an app called Bad Bachelor, which essentially allows people to rate and review dates online. The first book set the stage for this continuation of story with Wes being the target of reviews online.
Wes is the son of famous dance parents. He has lived in the world of ballet and dance his entire life. He wants to break free of his family name and legacy and start something on his own, he leaves the family business much to the chagrin of his very opinionated mother. He comes up with an idea for an off-off broadway show that will engage the audience right into the middle of the show. Now all he needs are investors and a star dancer for the female lead. With a website posting reviews about his manhood threatening to derail any hope of funding he needs to find a way to get his show off the ground.
Remi is an ex ballerina currently living in New York teaching ballet class at her friends studio. She has dream of opening her own studio now that her career in the dance world looks to be over. A chance meeting at one of her parent/kid classes has her reconsidering giving up on her dream. But can she put her past mistakes behind her and not head down the same ruining road of disaster.
I really enjoyed the dynamic of Wes and his mother, his father was pretty much talked about not actually to during this novel. Wes was trying his hardest to show his mother that he can make it on his own, without being a disappointment to the family name, while waiting for her to dish out an I told you so.
I wasnt sure I liked the gossip articles, review blurbs etc that were at the beginning of each new chapter. At the beginning they were very distracting, but as the story went on they really added to and became part of the story. I received an advance copy from the publishers without any expectation for review. Any and all opinions expressed are solely my own. I cant wait to read many more books from Stefanie London, starting with Bad Bachelor (Book 1 in this series)
Wes is the son of famous dance parents. He has lived in the world of ballet and dance his entire life. He wants to break free of his family name and legacy and start something on his own, he leaves the family business much to the chagrin of his very opinionated mother. He comes up with an idea for an off-off broadway show that will engage the audience right into the middle of the show. Now all he needs are investors and a star dancer for the female lead. With a website posting reviews about his manhood threatening to derail any hope of funding he needs to find a way to get his show off the ground.
Remi is an ex ballerina currently living in New York teaching ballet class at her friends studio. She has dream of opening her own studio now that her career in the dance world looks to be over. A chance meeting at one of her parent/kid classes has her reconsidering giving up on her dream. But can she put her past mistakes behind her and not head down the same ruining road of disaster.
I really enjoyed the dynamic of Wes and his mother, his father was pretty much talked about not actually to during this novel. Wes was trying his hardest to show his mother that he can make it on his own, without being a disappointment to the family name, while waiting for her to dish out an I told you so.
I wasnt sure I liked the gossip articles, review blurbs etc that were at the beginning of each new chapter. At the beginning they were very distracting, but as the story went on they really added to and became part of the story. I received an advance copy from the publishers without any expectation for review. Any and all opinions expressed are solely my own. I cant wait to read many more books from Stefanie London, starting with Bad Bachelor (Book 1 in this series)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spies in Disguise (2019) in Movies
Dec 7, 2020
Strong chemistry between Smith and Holland
Blue Sky Animation Studios has often been seen as the "poor little sister" in the animation game - behind Disney/Pixar and Dreamworks - and is often listed as the "Ice Age" studio. But, if you look into their filmography, you will see a solid mark of quality throughout.
This studio has delivered solid animated outings with such fare as ROBOTS, HORTON HEARS A WHO, RIO and FERDINAND (along with the myriad of ICE AGE films) and their latest feature - 2019's SPIES IN DISGUISE - is no exception. I was pleasantly surprised by the fun, action, comedy and suspense of this film and was entertained throughout.
Blue Sky, of course, IS the "poor little sister" to the "Big 2" and it shows in some of their casting choices. Where I thought vocal work was being done by Tina Fey and Holly Hunter, I soon discovered that it is Rachel Brosnahan and Reba Mcintyre - not shabby at all, but not quite the "A" team either (it's like you are listening to the Broadway replacement actors for the Original Cast).
That is probably because they spent all of their casting money on the 2 leads - Will Smith and Tom Holland - and they are TERRIFIC together. Unlike Holland's lackluster (and lack of chemistry) turn with Chris Pratt in the PIXAR film ONWARD, Holland and Smith work well together in this film and I enjoyed their interactions with each other. Of course, Will Smith is in a league of his own when it comes to charming, cocky adventure hero with raw emotions and a soul - and that is EXACTLY what his character is and it works very, very well. Add to that Holland's riff on his Spiderman Peter Parker character - a scientific genius who is socially awkward and we have a fun duo to root for throughout this film.
Other outstanding voice talents in this cast include Masi Oka (who's voice would be terrific in just about ANY animation film), Rashida Jones, Karen Gillen and the always good Ben Mendelsohn as the villain.
Directors Nick Bruno (in his Directorial debut) and Troy Quane (in only his 2nd Animated outing) do a professional job keeping the plot moving, the fun brewing and the plot and action scenes simple and easy to follow (an easy thing to screw up) and this makes SPIES IN DISGUISE a very fun escape for an hour and 42 minutes.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This studio has delivered solid animated outings with such fare as ROBOTS, HORTON HEARS A WHO, RIO and FERDINAND (along with the myriad of ICE AGE films) and their latest feature - 2019's SPIES IN DISGUISE - is no exception. I was pleasantly surprised by the fun, action, comedy and suspense of this film and was entertained throughout.
Blue Sky, of course, IS the "poor little sister" to the "Big 2" and it shows in some of their casting choices. Where I thought vocal work was being done by Tina Fey and Holly Hunter, I soon discovered that it is Rachel Brosnahan and Reba Mcintyre - not shabby at all, but not quite the "A" team either (it's like you are listening to the Broadway replacement actors for the Original Cast).
That is probably because they spent all of their casting money on the 2 leads - Will Smith and Tom Holland - and they are TERRIFIC together. Unlike Holland's lackluster (and lack of chemistry) turn with Chris Pratt in the PIXAR film ONWARD, Holland and Smith work well together in this film and I enjoyed their interactions with each other. Of course, Will Smith is in a league of his own when it comes to charming, cocky adventure hero with raw emotions and a soul - and that is EXACTLY what his character is and it works very, very well. Add to that Holland's riff on his Spiderman Peter Parker character - a scientific genius who is socially awkward and we have a fun duo to root for throughout this film.
Other outstanding voice talents in this cast include Masi Oka (who's voice would be terrific in just about ANY animation film), Rashida Jones, Karen Gillen and the always good Ben Mendelsohn as the villain.
Directors Nick Bruno (in his Directorial debut) and Troy Quane (in only his 2nd Animated outing) do a professional job keeping the plot moving, the fun brewing and the plot and action scenes simple and easy to follow (an easy thing to screw up) and this makes SPIES IN DISGUISE a very fun escape for an hour and 42 minutes.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gray Man (2022) in Movies
Aug 6, 2022
Entertaining Enough...but...NOTHING NEW
Have you seen the touring company of Hamilton when it came to your town? You liked it, didn’t you? I sure did, but I didn’t like it as much as I liked the Broadway Company of Hamilton that I saw in NYC the year before.
Such is the case with the new Ryan Gosling/Chris Evans action flick THE GRAY MAN. It is reminiscent of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films - and is very enjoyable - but I like the other movies better.
Directed by THE RUSSO BROTHERS (AVENGERS: ENDGAME) and written by Joe Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (writers of AVENGERS: ENDGAME), based on the book by Mark Greaney, THE GRAY MAN stars Gosling (LA LA LAND) as an enigmatic secret agent (is their any other kind) who is sent on a deadly mission that, perhaps isn’t what it seems on the surface (are there any other)?
This is a plot VERY reminiscent of the aforementioned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films and when Chris Evans (CAPTAIN AMERICA, of course) and Ana de Armas (the latest James Bond flick, NO TIME TO DIE) show up as a few other mercenaries who might be on Gosling’s side - or might not - you can’t help but be reminded of those other flicks.
And that’s the trouble with THE GRAY MAN, it just can’t compete (at least in my memory) with those other films, mostly because it doesn’t do anything new. It is your basic “Super Spy” flick, very professionally done, but it isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.
The actors (Gosling, de Armas and Evans) are very good in their roles and have enigmatic (Gosling), out of control (Evans) and mysterious (de Armas) down very well and are ably assisted by wily veterans like Alfre Woodard (CROSS CREEK) and good ol’ Billy Bob Thornton (SLINGBLADE) who seem to having a good time going along for the ride.
And…it’s a fun ride…the action scenes are well done, set-up and choreographed professionally with just enough unique ways to take out a henchman or blow-up some sort of transport to make it interesting to watch, but…again…it’s really nothing new.
An entertaining 2 hours of film-making - and a film that will have a sequel on the way - there are worst ways to spend your time and with good (enough) action sequences and interesting and charismatic performers to watch - THE GRAY MAN suits its purpose…it entertains.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the new Ryan Gosling/Chris Evans action flick THE GRAY MAN. It is reminiscent of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films - and is very enjoyable - but I like the other movies better.
Directed by THE RUSSO BROTHERS (AVENGERS: ENDGAME) and written by Joe Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (writers of AVENGERS: ENDGAME), based on the book by Mark Greaney, THE GRAY MAN stars Gosling (LA LA LAND) as an enigmatic secret agent (is their any other kind) who is sent on a deadly mission that, perhaps isn’t what it seems on the surface (are there any other)?
This is a plot VERY reminiscent of the aforementioned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films and when Chris Evans (CAPTAIN AMERICA, of course) and Ana de Armas (the latest James Bond flick, NO TIME TO DIE) show up as a few other mercenaries who might be on Gosling’s side - or might not - you can’t help but be reminded of those other flicks.
And that’s the trouble with THE GRAY MAN, it just can’t compete (at least in my memory) with those other films, mostly because it doesn’t do anything new. It is your basic “Super Spy” flick, very professionally done, but it isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.
The actors (Gosling, de Armas and Evans) are very good in their roles and have enigmatic (Gosling), out of control (Evans) and mysterious (de Armas) down very well and are ably assisted by wily veterans like Alfre Woodard (CROSS CREEK) and good ol’ Billy Bob Thornton (SLINGBLADE) who seem to having a good time going along for the ride.
And…it’s a fun ride…the action scenes are well done, set-up and choreographed professionally with just enough unique ways to take out a henchman or blow-up some sort of transport to make it interesting to watch, but…again…it’s really nothing new.
An entertaining 2 hours of film-making - and a film that will have a sequel on the way - there are worst ways to spend your time and with good (enough) action sequences and interesting and charismatic performers to watch - THE GRAY MAN suits its purpose…it entertains.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
Well Acted
In 2012, the conservative Pope Benedict - citing failing health - made the rare move of stepping down from the Papacy. He was, ultimately, replaced by the more Liberal Pope Francis. THE TWO POPES is a fictional account of a conversation that these two men had prior to Benedict's stepping down.
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Uncut Gems (2019) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
Sandler deserves an Oscar Nomination
Adam Sandler deserves and Oscar nomination.
I never thought I'd ever write that sentence, but after seeing his performance in the Safdie brothers film, UNCUT GEMS, I can make that statement with solid confidence.
Following the constant hustle of NYC jewelry dealer (and degenerate gambler), Howard Ratner (Sandler), UNCUT GEMS is an unrelenting look at a person who is never satisfied with where he is - he's always looking for the next "big score".
As portrayed by Sandler, Ratner is charming, charismatic, a BS artist of the highest order and quick with a joke and a scheme in every situation. This is a tour-de-force performance by Sandler who is in virtually every moment of this film. His character is ruthless and relentless - never giving up or losing energy - and it was the constant rat-a-tat-tat of this character/performance that caused great angst in me - as well as great appreciation for the fine performance I was witnessing.
The film was written and directed by the Safdie Brothers (Benny and Josh) who are known in the Independent film world, but who are new to me. I was intrigued by the story, the world and the logistics of this film. It is a smart - and fast paced - film that doesn't try to "dumb it down" for the audience. I applaud them for their work here - and I look forward to what they do next.
A performance like Sandler's is only good if he has good actors to play off of - and he does (in spades) here. From veteran actor Judd Hirsch, to Broadway Superstar Idina Menzel to the great (and underused, in my opinion) Eric Brogosian to the always watchable Lakeith Stanfield, Sandler was able to spar and parry with these performers at a breakneck pace that was intriguing, fascinating and hard to watch.
But the biggest surprise (besides Sandler's dramatic acting chops) was the performance of NBA Superstar Kevin Garnett. Playing a fictionalized and younger (this film is set in 2011) version of himself, Garnett brought the same authority to the screen that he brought to the court.
This is a VERY adult film (according to reports, this film has the 7th most "F-Bombs" of any film in history) with adult subjects and adult situations - all swirling around Sandler's character at a breakneck pace that will be simultaneously satisfying - and hard to watch. Are you watching a person spiraling out of control - or are you watching a very smart person weaving his way in and out of precarious situations?
Watch UNCUT GEMS - and you be the judge.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I never thought I'd ever write that sentence, but after seeing his performance in the Safdie brothers film, UNCUT GEMS, I can make that statement with solid confidence.
Following the constant hustle of NYC jewelry dealer (and degenerate gambler), Howard Ratner (Sandler), UNCUT GEMS is an unrelenting look at a person who is never satisfied with where he is - he's always looking for the next "big score".
As portrayed by Sandler, Ratner is charming, charismatic, a BS artist of the highest order and quick with a joke and a scheme in every situation. This is a tour-de-force performance by Sandler who is in virtually every moment of this film. His character is ruthless and relentless - never giving up or losing energy - and it was the constant rat-a-tat-tat of this character/performance that caused great angst in me - as well as great appreciation for the fine performance I was witnessing.
The film was written and directed by the Safdie Brothers (Benny and Josh) who are known in the Independent film world, but who are new to me. I was intrigued by the story, the world and the logistics of this film. It is a smart - and fast paced - film that doesn't try to "dumb it down" for the audience. I applaud them for their work here - and I look forward to what they do next.
A performance like Sandler's is only good if he has good actors to play off of - and he does (in spades) here. From veteran actor Judd Hirsch, to Broadway Superstar Idina Menzel to the great (and underused, in my opinion) Eric Brogosian to the always watchable Lakeith Stanfield, Sandler was able to spar and parry with these performers at a breakneck pace that was intriguing, fascinating and hard to watch.
But the biggest surprise (besides Sandler's dramatic acting chops) was the performance of NBA Superstar Kevin Garnett. Playing a fictionalized and younger (this film is set in 2011) version of himself, Garnett brought the same authority to the screen that he brought to the court.
This is a VERY adult film (according to reports, this film has the 7th most "F-Bombs" of any film in history) with adult subjects and adult situations - all swirling around Sandler's character at a breakneck pace that will be simultaneously satisfying - and hard to watch. Are you watching a person spiraling out of control - or are you watching a very smart person weaving his way in and out of precarious situations?
Watch UNCUT GEMS - and you be the judge.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Whenever I was asked who my favorite Disney prince was, I’d answer, without hesitation, “The Beast.”
Friends would look at me askance and ask, “The Beast? Really?”
And I’d simply reply, “Have you not seen his library?”
I also claim Belle as my favorite Disney princess. As a bookworm, Beauty and the Beast gave me a princess I could relate to. Sure, I had just graduated from high school the year before the animated film – not really the demographic Disney was catering to. But when I first watched Belle’s introductory scene, as she made her way through the village with her nose buried in a book while the townfolk sang of her “odd” behavior, I felt l the corners of my lips rise on their own, in a smile of recognition.
Sure, it also may have been because of the clever lyrics of the late Howard Ashman and the wondrous melodies of Alan Menken in that first song alone, but Belle quickly me over not only with her joy for stories and spirit of adventure, but also with her brave spirit.
Beauty and the Beast is a fairy tale told many times over and Disney’s live-action version follows the animated classic closely with some variation and additional scenes and few more songs. Like the animated film, it’s sweepingly romantic and just as enchanting. What the audience may struggle with is that Emma Watson’s Belle is not as…well, animated as the animated Belle. She brings a solemnity to the role, and as singing talent goes, while she is no Paige O’Hara, she can sing.
Luke Evans makes a menacingly handsome Gaston and his big number, with his sidekick LeFou (Josh Gad) is an entertaining high point that cements Gaston’s position as my favorite villain. Dan Stevens brought a bit more humanity to Beast, and with a heartbreaking song of his own, his despair is more keenly felt in this movie. But I have to admit, I prefer Josh Groban’s version of Beast’s solo, which you do get to hear if you sit through the credits.
Lumière the candelabra and Cogsworth the clock were brought to life with great voice work Ewan McGregor and Ian McKellen, respectively. Emma Thompson voiced Mrs. Potts perfectly. I don’t know if it was her voice, the theme song or the ballroom dance scene that provoked an overwhelming sense of nostalgia, but the captivating combination literally brought tears to my eyes. Kevin Kline, who played Belle’s father, Maurice, Stanley Tucci, and Broadway great Audra McDonald round out a solid supporting cast.
As a huge fan of the 1991 Beauty and the Beast, I didn’t believe a live-action version could improve on the beloved, timeless classic. But just like with the animated film, it was truly the songs that made the movie, and the music does it again for the live-action film, making it a memorable, magical treat for young and old alike.
Friends would look at me askance and ask, “The Beast? Really?”
And I’d simply reply, “Have you not seen his library?”
I also claim Belle as my favorite Disney princess. As a bookworm, Beauty and the Beast gave me a princess I could relate to. Sure, I had just graduated from high school the year before the animated film – not really the demographic Disney was catering to. But when I first watched Belle’s introductory scene, as she made her way through the village with her nose buried in a book while the townfolk sang of her “odd” behavior, I felt l the corners of my lips rise on their own, in a smile of recognition.
Sure, it also may have been because of the clever lyrics of the late Howard Ashman and the wondrous melodies of Alan Menken in that first song alone, but Belle quickly me over not only with her joy for stories and spirit of adventure, but also with her brave spirit.
Beauty and the Beast is a fairy tale told many times over and Disney’s live-action version follows the animated classic closely with some variation and additional scenes and few more songs. Like the animated film, it’s sweepingly romantic and just as enchanting. What the audience may struggle with is that Emma Watson’s Belle is not as…well, animated as the animated Belle. She brings a solemnity to the role, and as singing talent goes, while she is no Paige O’Hara, she can sing.
Luke Evans makes a menacingly handsome Gaston and his big number, with his sidekick LeFou (Josh Gad) is an entertaining high point that cements Gaston’s position as my favorite villain. Dan Stevens brought a bit more humanity to Beast, and with a heartbreaking song of his own, his despair is more keenly felt in this movie. But I have to admit, I prefer Josh Groban’s version of Beast’s solo, which you do get to hear if you sit through the credits.
Lumière the candelabra and Cogsworth the clock were brought to life with great voice work Ewan McGregor and Ian McKellen, respectively. Emma Thompson voiced Mrs. Potts perfectly. I don’t know if it was her voice, the theme song or the ballroom dance scene that provoked an overwhelming sense of nostalgia, but the captivating combination literally brought tears to my eyes. Kevin Kline, who played Belle’s father, Maurice, Stanley Tucci, and Broadway great Audra McDonald round out a solid supporting cast.
As a huge fan of the 1991 Beauty and the Beast, I didn’t believe a live-action version could improve on the beloved, timeless classic. But just like with the animated film, it was truly the songs that made the movie, and the music does it again for the live-action film, making it a memorable, magical treat for young and old alike.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Outfit (2022) in Movies
Jul 1, 2022
Smart, Intelligent and Understated
So much of the success or failure of a film at the Cineplex Box Office depends on the marketing of the film and the timing of it’s release. In the case of the wonderful crime drama THE OUTFIT (who’s release was buried in late January/early February 2022), the marketing did it no favors.
And that’s too bad, for this Mark Rylance film - which could easily be a stage play - is an intriguing SMART cat and mouse drama between some mob types and their tailor.
Yes, their tailor.
Rylance stars as Leonard, a tailor (he prefers to be called a “cutter”), who has a shop in Chicago in the 1950’s, THE OUTFIT tells the tale of said cutter who’s business is booming thanks to patronage of local gangsters (the titular OUTFIT) who not only frequent his shop for suits, but also to use it as a place to make “drops”. The intrigue of this film comes when “things get real” for THE OUTFIT and they use Leonard’s shop as a hideout. Leonard must outsmart the outfit - and their foes - if he hopes to survive the night.
It’s a smart premise made all the more interesting by the understated performance by Rylance who, once again, shows that his genial demeanor is disguising a very intelligent and fast-working brain. It is another in a long string of strong performances by Rylance (who won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his work in 2015’s BRIDGE OF SPIES).
Rylance is joined on screen by some very good performances by Zoey Deutch (ZOMBIELAND DOUBLETAP), Johnny Flynn (EMMA), Stage Actor Simon Russell Beale (THE DEATH OF STALIN) and, most surprisingly, Dylan O’Brien (THE MAZE RUNNER). They bring a Broadway stage performance sense of style to this work - and it is absolutely the right approach to this material, for the entire film takes place inside Leonard’s tailor shop.
Credit for this must go to Director Graham Moore (THE IMITATION GAME) who wrote this film with Johnathan McClain. He has a firm grip on what he is attempting to do - and he does it well. He sets up the premise and the players well and then pays off the circumstances - sometimes surprisingly - in satisfying ways. It is a strong showing by Moore and I’ll be looking to see what he does next.
Intelligent, understated, stage-like, smart…no wonder the suits at Universal had no idea how to market it.
So, I’ll market/champion this film that perfectly casts Rylance. He is in almost every scene and it is his intense and interesting performance that will pull you into his shop - and into the world of the OUTFIT.
Check it out - you’ll be glad you did.
THE OUTFIT is streaming for free for those of you subscribed to PEACOCK and can be rented (or bought) on most of the major outlets for those types of things.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that’s too bad, for this Mark Rylance film - which could easily be a stage play - is an intriguing SMART cat and mouse drama between some mob types and their tailor.
Yes, their tailor.
Rylance stars as Leonard, a tailor (he prefers to be called a “cutter”), who has a shop in Chicago in the 1950’s, THE OUTFIT tells the tale of said cutter who’s business is booming thanks to patronage of local gangsters (the titular OUTFIT) who not only frequent his shop for suits, but also to use it as a place to make “drops”. The intrigue of this film comes when “things get real” for THE OUTFIT and they use Leonard’s shop as a hideout. Leonard must outsmart the outfit - and their foes - if he hopes to survive the night.
It’s a smart premise made all the more interesting by the understated performance by Rylance who, once again, shows that his genial demeanor is disguising a very intelligent and fast-working brain. It is another in a long string of strong performances by Rylance (who won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his work in 2015’s BRIDGE OF SPIES).
Rylance is joined on screen by some very good performances by Zoey Deutch (ZOMBIELAND DOUBLETAP), Johnny Flynn (EMMA), Stage Actor Simon Russell Beale (THE DEATH OF STALIN) and, most surprisingly, Dylan O’Brien (THE MAZE RUNNER). They bring a Broadway stage performance sense of style to this work - and it is absolutely the right approach to this material, for the entire film takes place inside Leonard’s tailor shop.
Credit for this must go to Director Graham Moore (THE IMITATION GAME) who wrote this film with Johnathan McClain. He has a firm grip on what he is attempting to do - and he does it well. He sets up the premise and the players well and then pays off the circumstances - sometimes surprisingly - in satisfying ways. It is a strong showing by Moore and I’ll be looking to see what he does next.
Intelligent, understated, stage-like, smart…no wonder the suits at Universal had no idea how to market it.
So, I’ll market/champion this film that perfectly casts Rylance. He is in almost every scene and it is his intense and interesting performance that will pull you into his shop - and into the world of the OUTFIT.
Check it out - you’ll be glad you did.
THE OUTFIT is streaming for free for those of you subscribed to PEACOCK and can be rented (or bought) on most of the major outlets for those types of things.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Oct 24, 2018 (Updated Oct 24, 2018)
Good ensemble cast (2 more)
Cool set design and use of space
Nice cinematography
Enjoy Your Stay
In this day and age, it is becoming increasingly difficult to go into a movie without already knowing a bunch of information about it. Somehow Bad Times At The El Royale managed that. Even though I was a week late to seeing this movie, I was still able to go into it with very little knowledge about what was going to unfold. That in and of itself is an impressive feat in 2018.
I had a great time with this movie. I loved the cast here, Jeff Bridges and Jon Hamm are among my favourite actors working in Hollywood and I though that Chris Hemsworth did a fantastic job playing the villain for a change. The rest of the cast were fantastic too, other than Dakota Johnson, who was pretty wooden, (as we have come to expect from her.) As an aside, Cynthia Erivo's voice completely blew me away, I know that she has done some Broadway shows in the past, but she sounded incredible in this and I liked the way that her singing was tied in with the plot.
Bad Times is written and directed by Drew Goddard, who was also behind Cabin In The Woods and there are some similarities here, if you swap the horror elements out for mystery. I have also seen multiple reviews compare this to a Tarantino movie. There are obviously similarities in the structure that this film uses and the out-of-chronological-order structure that a Tarantino movie tends to follow, but I'd argue that Bad Times has it's own distinct and unique style.
I also thought that the cinematography was very effective throughout the film. The opening scene was very well shot, as was the scene when Hemsworth's character was introduced. The score also worked well with the plot and the dialogue and script were well written too.
The main negative that affected my enjoyment of the movie, were the decisions made regarding the pacing. The movie is split up so that we see things happen out of sequence or they are seen more than once from a different perspective. We are introduced to each new character and then we are given their backstory via a flashback. The main issue with this structure is that the flashbacks break the momentum of the events happening in the current story. Without spoiling too much, towards the end of the movie, everything comes to a head and an intense fight/shootout breaks out. Then, for some unknown reason, the filmmakers decide to slam on the brakes and give us another arbitrary flashback. It totally broke the immersion and intensity of the shootout sequence for me.
Overall, I had a good time watching Bad Times. I had no expectations going in as I didn't know much about the movie other than what had been shown in the trailers and I enjoyed witnessing what the movie had to offer. If you are looking for an exciting, suspenseful thriller, then you could definitely do worse than spending a stay at The El Royale.
I had a great time with this movie. I loved the cast here, Jeff Bridges and Jon Hamm are among my favourite actors working in Hollywood and I though that Chris Hemsworth did a fantastic job playing the villain for a change. The rest of the cast were fantastic too, other than Dakota Johnson, who was pretty wooden, (as we have come to expect from her.) As an aside, Cynthia Erivo's voice completely blew me away, I know that she has done some Broadway shows in the past, but she sounded incredible in this and I liked the way that her singing was tied in with the plot.
Bad Times is written and directed by Drew Goddard, who was also behind Cabin In The Woods and there are some similarities here, if you swap the horror elements out for mystery. I have also seen multiple reviews compare this to a Tarantino movie. There are obviously similarities in the structure that this film uses and the out-of-chronological-order structure that a Tarantino movie tends to follow, but I'd argue that Bad Times has it's own distinct and unique style.
I also thought that the cinematography was very effective throughout the film. The opening scene was very well shot, as was the scene when Hemsworth's character was introduced. The score also worked well with the plot and the dialogue and script were well written too.
The main negative that affected my enjoyment of the movie, were the decisions made regarding the pacing. The movie is split up so that we see things happen out of sequence or they are seen more than once from a different perspective. We are introduced to each new character and then we are given their backstory via a flashback. The main issue with this structure is that the flashbacks break the momentum of the events happening in the current story. Without spoiling too much, towards the end of the movie, everything comes to a head and an intense fight/shootout breaks out. Then, for some unknown reason, the filmmakers decide to slam on the brakes and give us another arbitrary flashback. It totally broke the immersion and intensity of the shootout sequence for me.
Overall, I had a good time watching Bad Times. I had no expectations going in as I didn't know much about the movie other than what had been shown in the trailers and I enjoyed witnessing what the movie had to offer. If you are looking for an exciting, suspenseful thriller, then you could definitely do worse than spending a stay at The El Royale.