Search
Search results
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated The Book of Kings in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – The Book of Kings Has a Few Gems and a Few Warts
Contains spoilers, click to show
Unlike other short story anthologies I could mention, this one wasn’t mostly horrible. Instead, the stories inside run the gamut from stupid to brilliant and from annoying to nothing special to fun and memorable. A little something for everyone, then.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Only Mr Darcy Will Do in Books
Dec 6, 2017
Great retelling, despite the shortfalls
I’m such a sucker for these kinds of books featuring Pride and Prejudice. There are so many different types of retellings and most of them are good. This one has its moments and it was enjoyable to read.
So in this twist, our beloved Mr Bennet dies prematurely and Elizabeth becomes a governess. This was rather interesting, and it does suit Elizabeth rather well - although back then in the day it’s a drop in the society ladder and everyone she knows makes sure she knows it.
So she meets Rosalyn which I thought at first, was an ideal friend for our dear Lizzie. She’s a bit vapid and valley girl type of character. Especially when Mr Darcy is around (can’t blame her, we all love Mr Darcy) but it’s almost to the point where she’s annoying about it. It’s not until the latter half of the novel where Rosalyn does a complete 360 and she becomes a pretty awful person (including her mother).
The plot in this one tries to stay within the main one we’re all familiar with it just diverts the path a bit and comes back to full circle. Which is nice as it tries to stay true to the original story at the same time you just get a different “what if” scenario to enjoy reading. I’d have to say I enjoy reading Hamilton (another cousin of Darcy’s) playing along with Elizabeth. It was playful banter and he sounded like the type of rogue we all love to read and fall for (albeit, foolishly). It was a bit hard to get into at first but it’s worth going through to the end as once Rosalyn does her 360 turn, everything becomes much more interesting.
The only thing I did not enjoy reading is towards the end Darcy does something completely out of character and it just did not sit well with me. He’s not the type to be outspoken even when it comes to be madly in love. Don’t make him something he’s not. It nearly ruined the entire book as it was doing so well staying close to the true nature of the characters only to have him do something he wouldn’t EVER do (nor can you picture him doing so).
Also, the ending just dragged too much for me. We get it. We all know what’s going to happen. We all know what did happen. There’s no need for extra fodder in the last few chapters of the book. It could have just ended with the proposal or wedding and done. Perhaps the last few chapters could have been made into an entirely new idea for another book to be made. It was just so unnecessary.
Overall, it was a good read for those that love Pride and Prejudice “what if” scenarios and fans. I enjoyed it despite those changes in characters that nearly caused me to grind my teeth and yelling out certain expletives.
So in this twist, our beloved Mr Bennet dies prematurely and Elizabeth becomes a governess. This was rather interesting, and it does suit Elizabeth rather well - although back then in the day it’s a drop in the society ladder and everyone she knows makes sure she knows it.
So she meets Rosalyn which I thought at first, was an ideal friend for our dear Lizzie. She’s a bit vapid and valley girl type of character. Especially when Mr Darcy is around (can’t blame her, we all love Mr Darcy) but it’s almost to the point where she’s annoying about it. It’s not until the latter half of the novel where Rosalyn does a complete 360 and she becomes a pretty awful person (including her mother).
The plot in this one tries to stay within the main one we’re all familiar with it just diverts the path a bit and comes back to full circle. Which is nice as it tries to stay true to the original story at the same time you just get a different “what if” scenario to enjoy reading. I’d have to say I enjoy reading Hamilton (another cousin of Darcy’s) playing along with Elizabeth. It was playful banter and he sounded like the type of rogue we all love to read and fall for (albeit, foolishly). It was a bit hard to get into at first but it’s worth going through to the end as once Rosalyn does her 360 turn, everything becomes much more interesting.
The only thing I did not enjoy reading is towards the end Darcy does something completely out of character and it just did not sit well with me. He’s not the type to be outspoken even when it comes to be madly in love. Don’t make him something he’s not. It nearly ruined the entire book as it was doing so well staying close to the true nature of the characters only to have him do something he wouldn’t EVER do (nor can you picture him doing so).
Also, the ending just dragged too much for me. We get it. We all know what’s going to happen. We all know what did happen. There’s no need for extra fodder in the last few chapters of the book. It could have just ended with the proposal or wedding and done. Perhaps the last few chapters could have been made into an entirely new idea for another book to be made. It was just so unnecessary.
Overall, it was a good read for those that love Pride and Prejudice “what if” scenarios and fans. I enjoyed it despite those changes in characters that nearly caused me to grind my teeth and yelling out certain expletives.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Mar 14, 2018
Thoughtful, provocative murder mystery
The back 1/2 of August has traditionally been a dumping ground for bad motion pictures. One exception to this was last year when the deserved Oscar nominated film HELL OR HIGH WATER was released (if you still haven't caught up with this, I highly recommend you do). So when I saw that the writer of HHW, Taylor Sheridan, was coming out with another modern sheriff murder mystery, I was intrigued to say the least.
And, I am happy to report, that this film did not disappoint. While it is not at the level of HHW, it certainly is a thoughtful, provocative murder mystery that is a refreshing change from the normal SuperHero, GGI-fests that festoon the cineplex throughout the course of the summer months.
Written and Directed by Sheridan (the screenwriter of HHW and SICARIO), WIND RIVER tells the tale of a murder on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. Coming in to investigate is young, city girl, Florida native, Elizabeth Olsen who teams up with aTribal Police Captain (Graham Greene) and a veteran tracker (Jeremy Renner) to find out what happened.
This could have been a by-the-book murder mystery with the naive, "fish-out-of-water" Olsen learning to love and understand the world she is thrust into, but in the hands (and pen) of Sheridan, it is much, much more. Sheridan creates a mood throughout this film, one of slow, lingering dread and hopelessness - and how he accomplishes this was intriguing to me. He uses the setting of the Indian Reservation to show the "smallness" of the people living there, juxtaposing scenes of vast, wild, cold wilderness with scenes of squalor in the settlement of Native American people living there.
The acting is solid - Olsen is turning into a very good actress and her performance sets the right tone. Greene is, as always, a steady hand on the screen with a pragmatic approach to the inhabitants of the Reservation, but it is Jeremy Renner as the quiet, taciturn tracker who has a loss of his own that parallels the murder investigation, that shines. I've always liked Renner and was high on his potential after his breakout performance in THE HURT LOCKER in 2008. While his performances in the blockbusters that followed have been solid, but not spectacular - you saw glimpses of it in films like THE TOWN - but I've felt that he never quite lived up to that potential - until now. This is a very strong performance (falling just short of Oscar material) but one that anchors this film and mirrors the mood that Sheridan sets up through the location of WIND RIVER.
Not the fastest moving of films, but a thoughtful, intelligent mystery that left me grateful for a film with some meat on the bone after a summer of "Cotton Candy" action flicks
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, I am happy to report, that this film did not disappoint. While it is not at the level of HHW, it certainly is a thoughtful, provocative murder mystery that is a refreshing change from the normal SuperHero, GGI-fests that festoon the cineplex throughout the course of the summer months.
Written and Directed by Sheridan (the screenwriter of HHW and SICARIO), WIND RIVER tells the tale of a murder on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. Coming in to investigate is young, city girl, Florida native, Elizabeth Olsen who teams up with aTribal Police Captain (Graham Greene) and a veteran tracker (Jeremy Renner) to find out what happened.
This could have been a by-the-book murder mystery with the naive, "fish-out-of-water" Olsen learning to love and understand the world she is thrust into, but in the hands (and pen) of Sheridan, it is much, much more. Sheridan creates a mood throughout this film, one of slow, lingering dread and hopelessness - and how he accomplishes this was intriguing to me. He uses the setting of the Indian Reservation to show the "smallness" of the people living there, juxtaposing scenes of vast, wild, cold wilderness with scenes of squalor in the settlement of Native American people living there.
The acting is solid - Olsen is turning into a very good actress and her performance sets the right tone. Greene is, as always, a steady hand on the screen with a pragmatic approach to the inhabitants of the Reservation, but it is Jeremy Renner as the quiet, taciturn tracker who has a loss of his own that parallels the murder investigation, that shines. I've always liked Renner and was high on his potential after his breakout performance in THE HURT LOCKER in 2008. While his performances in the blockbusters that followed have been solid, but not spectacular - you saw glimpses of it in films like THE TOWN - but I've felt that he never quite lived up to that potential - until now. This is a very strong performance (falling just short of Oscar material) but one that anchors this film and mirrors the mood that Sheridan sets up through the location of WIND RIVER.
Not the fastest moving of films, but a thoughtful, intelligent mystery that left me grateful for a film with some meat on the bone after a summer of "Cotton Candy" action flicks
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019 (Updated Oct 29, 2019)
I'll start by saying that Terminator: Dark Fate isn't quite the glorious return to form that a lot of people were hoping it would be. It's not a scratch on the first two, but there's enough good here to provide a mostly enjoyable sequel.
The Terminator series has had a bit of an extended rough patch over the last 15-20 years to say the least. Many fans (including myself) are quite happy to pretend that any entries after T2 just don't exist.
Lucky for us then that Dark Fate feels the same way.
Picking up after the events of T2, with a bit of digital trickery, we're first subjected to a sweet shot of nostalgia that we seem to be getting used to these days.
One thing I found apparent throughout DF, is that it drip feeds nostalgia quite subtly, without ever going overboard.
From there we're introduced to characters old and new including a new Terminator target Dani (Natalia Reyes), her cybernetically augmented human protector-from-the-future, Grace (Mackenzie Davis) and the new improved Terminator model for this chapter, the 'Rev-9' (Gabriel Luna).
And then of course Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), back and more badass than ever.
I enjoyed the cast as a whole during DF, but I'll admit that whenever Hamilton was involved in a scene was when my attention was at a peak.
The pacing drags at times - the action scenes are pretty hectic, and mostly entertaining, and a decent script holds the slower moments together for the most part, but i found parts of the middle act a little dull at times.
Arnold Schwarzenegger appears fairly late on, and the film picked up a notch for me at this point. The position we find him in is initially quite jarring, but does (kind of) make sense once explained. It's also Schwarzenegger that provides the bulk of Dark Fate's sparse humour, and it's done very well. Just like the nostalgia aspect, it never quite goes overboard, allowing for some genuinely funny moments in an otherwise serious movie.
The climax of the film is stupidly entertaining, with thrilling action, and some genuinely emotional moments. Dark Fate felt like a 6/10 to me until the last 25 minutes, and it's a strong final sequence that closes the film nicely.
The CGI is mostly decent. Mostly. There are some moments early on that look dodgy AF, and an action set piece on a huge plane a bit later on that is glaringly awful, but it's not enough to tank what is overall, an entertaining action vehicle, with a great cast.
I honestly (and probably naively) hope that the Terminator franchise is left alone now. There's only so many ways one can shoehorn Arnie into a new Terminator narrative, and Dark Fate does just enough to make up for the last three films. And that's good enough for me.
The Terminator series has had a bit of an extended rough patch over the last 15-20 years to say the least. Many fans (including myself) are quite happy to pretend that any entries after T2 just don't exist.
Lucky for us then that Dark Fate feels the same way.
Picking up after the events of T2, with a bit of digital trickery, we're first subjected to a sweet shot of nostalgia that we seem to be getting used to these days.
One thing I found apparent throughout DF, is that it drip feeds nostalgia quite subtly, without ever going overboard.
From there we're introduced to characters old and new including a new Terminator target Dani (Natalia Reyes), her cybernetically augmented human protector-from-the-future, Grace (Mackenzie Davis) and the new improved Terminator model for this chapter, the 'Rev-9' (Gabriel Luna).
And then of course Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), back and more badass than ever.
I enjoyed the cast as a whole during DF, but I'll admit that whenever Hamilton was involved in a scene was when my attention was at a peak.
The pacing drags at times - the action scenes are pretty hectic, and mostly entertaining, and a decent script holds the slower moments together for the most part, but i found parts of the middle act a little dull at times.
Arnold Schwarzenegger appears fairly late on, and the film picked up a notch for me at this point. The position we find him in is initially quite jarring, but does (kind of) make sense once explained. It's also Schwarzenegger that provides the bulk of Dark Fate's sparse humour, and it's done very well. Just like the nostalgia aspect, it never quite goes overboard, allowing for some genuinely funny moments in an otherwise serious movie.
The climax of the film is stupidly entertaining, with thrilling action, and some genuinely emotional moments. Dark Fate felt like a 6/10 to me until the last 25 minutes, and it's a strong final sequence that closes the film nicely.
The CGI is mostly decent. Mostly. There are some moments early on that look dodgy AF, and an action set piece on a huge plane a bit later on that is glaringly awful, but it's not enough to tank what is overall, an entertaining action vehicle, with a great cast.
I honestly (and probably naively) hope that the Terminator franchise is left alone now. There's only so many ways one can shoehorn Arnie into a new Terminator narrative, and Dark Fate does just enough to make up for the last three films. And that's good enough for me.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Encanto (2021) in Movies
Dec 28, 2021
Fun Family Friendly Film with GREAT Music
The good thing about travelling by plane over the Holidays is that it is an opportunity to catch up on Movies that were missed. Such is the case with the Disney Animation Film ENCANTO - a film that “came and went” earlier this fall.
And…I’m glad I saw it, for ENCANTO is the family-friendly, fun and heart warming film that is perfect Holiday viewing for the entire family.
Set in the magical Columbian village of ENCANTO, this film tells the tale of a family that are all given magical powers to use to help their village survive and thrive…all, that is, except for Mirabel who becomes somewhat of an outcast with her family for not having a magical gift bestowed upon her.
At first glance, this Animated Musical might remind people of the PIXAR animated film COCO from a few years ago. But that is like saying THE LITTLE MERMAID reminds you of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST or CINDERELLA reminds your of SLEEPING BEAUTY. While there are some striking similarities to COCO, ENCANTO is it’s own film and serves the story of the importance of family very, very well.
Stephanie Beatriz (TV’s BROOKLYN 99) is terrific as the voice of Mirabel, she has that headstrong, optimistic bent to her that many other Disney Princesses/Heroines (MOANA, Anna from FROZEN and Rapunzel in TANGLED are other examples of this). Mirabel is a solid addition to this group, she is a winning personality to spend time with.
The rest of the voices of the family fill the characters well, with the obvious standout being the great John Leguizamo (to tell you what character he voice is to spoil the film). Suffice it to say he is great.
The Direction by Jared Bush and Byron Howard (the Directors of another under-the-radar Disney Animated film, ZOOTOPIA) keep the events flowing and the many, many family members clear so as not to confuse the audience (this is no small feat), they know what they are doing and it shows. The only real mark I have against the movie is that the ending fell just a bit flat for me, but that is just a quibble in a really fine Animated movie.
And then…there is the music.
I did not realize that this film was a musical and was pleasantly tapping my toes on the airplane to the many musical numbers. I made the mental note to find out who wrote these fine tunes and was not too surprised to find out it was the one and only Lin-Manuel Miranda (Broadway’s HAMILTON). This musical genius has done it again.
ENCANTO is streaming on Disney+ so if you have this service and are looking for a fun, family-friendly way to pass a couple of hours, look no further than ENCANTO.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…I’m glad I saw it, for ENCANTO is the family-friendly, fun and heart warming film that is perfect Holiday viewing for the entire family.
Set in the magical Columbian village of ENCANTO, this film tells the tale of a family that are all given magical powers to use to help their village survive and thrive…all, that is, except for Mirabel who becomes somewhat of an outcast with her family for not having a magical gift bestowed upon her.
At first glance, this Animated Musical might remind people of the PIXAR animated film COCO from a few years ago. But that is like saying THE LITTLE MERMAID reminds you of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST or CINDERELLA reminds your of SLEEPING BEAUTY. While there are some striking similarities to COCO, ENCANTO is it’s own film and serves the story of the importance of family very, very well.
Stephanie Beatriz (TV’s BROOKLYN 99) is terrific as the voice of Mirabel, she has that headstrong, optimistic bent to her that many other Disney Princesses/Heroines (MOANA, Anna from FROZEN and Rapunzel in TANGLED are other examples of this). Mirabel is a solid addition to this group, she is a winning personality to spend time with.
The rest of the voices of the family fill the characters well, with the obvious standout being the great John Leguizamo (to tell you what character he voice is to spoil the film). Suffice it to say he is great.
The Direction by Jared Bush and Byron Howard (the Directors of another under-the-radar Disney Animated film, ZOOTOPIA) keep the events flowing and the many, many family members clear so as not to confuse the audience (this is no small feat), they know what they are doing and it shows. The only real mark I have against the movie is that the ending fell just a bit flat for me, but that is just a quibble in a really fine Animated movie.
And then…there is the music.
I did not realize that this film was a musical and was pleasantly tapping my toes on the airplane to the many musical numbers. I made the mental note to find out who wrote these fine tunes and was not too surprised to find out it was the one and only Lin-Manuel Miranda (Broadway’s HAMILTON). This musical genius has done it again.
ENCANTO is streaming on Disney+ so if you have this service and are looking for a fun, family-friendly way to pass a couple of hours, look no further than ENCANTO.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 3, 2022
When audiences last saw Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) he had accidentally opened a portal into
other universe or as they are known, Multiverses in an attempt to help Spider-man.
In the new Marvel film “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” the Sorcerer finds himself disturbed by dreams of himself and a mysterious girl battling an evil presence but something about it does not seem right and he puts it down to conflicted feelings over attending the wedding of his ex-Christine (Rachel McAdams).
Before he can fully process his feelings, Strange is soon battling a giant creature that appears to be trying to capture the very girl from his dreams. With the help of Wong (Benedict Wong), they are able to save the day and learn that the girl whose name is America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) has an uncontrolled ability to travel across the Multiverse and that a demon is after her as he wants her powers for himself.
Facing a threat to their very existence, the group seeks the help of Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olson) and attempts to convince the former Avenger to aid them. Things take a very dark turn soon after as the true nature of the threat facing them comes to light and Strange and America flees into the Multiverse in an attempt to save the universe as they know it.
The film hits the ground running with a great action sequence which is followed a bit later by another before it becomes a bit bogged down in metaphysical and multi-dimensional conversations. Thankfully the strong characters help hold your interest during the slower parts of the film and the finale plays out well giving fans the action and character development that they would want.
Much has been made about the cameos in the film and while I will confirm that they are there I will not spoil them and I will say that several of the wilder theories are not true.
Director Sam Raimi has made a triumphant return to Super Hero movies as this outing combines what fans expect from a comic book-based film and blends it with supernatural horror to create a darker and more intense Marvel film than many have been used to.
The effects in the film are top-notch but it is the strong performances that drive the film not the effects and the movie opens up so many possibilities for the future. There are two bonus scenes in the credits and a promise that Doctor Strange will return. It has been reported that Marvel Producer Kevin Feige and his team have already plotted out the next ten years of Marvel films beyond what has already been announced and I cannot wait to see where they go next as Marvel has once again shown that by giving fans inter-connected stories that are well-planned and part of a living-universe, or in this case Multiverse, that they have plenty of material to come.
4 stars out of 5
other universe or as they are known, Multiverses in an attempt to help Spider-man.
In the new Marvel film “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” the Sorcerer finds himself disturbed by dreams of himself and a mysterious girl battling an evil presence but something about it does not seem right and he puts it down to conflicted feelings over attending the wedding of his ex-Christine (Rachel McAdams).
Before he can fully process his feelings, Strange is soon battling a giant creature that appears to be trying to capture the very girl from his dreams. With the help of Wong (Benedict Wong), they are able to save the day and learn that the girl whose name is America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) has an uncontrolled ability to travel across the Multiverse and that a demon is after her as he wants her powers for himself.
Facing a threat to their very existence, the group seeks the help of Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olson) and attempts to convince the former Avenger to aid them. Things take a very dark turn soon after as the true nature of the threat facing them comes to light and Strange and America flees into the Multiverse in an attempt to save the universe as they know it.
The film hits the ground running with a great action sequence which is followed a bit later by another before it becomes a bit bogged down in metaphysical and multi-dimensional conversations. Thankfully the strong characters help hold your interest during the slower parts of the film and the finale plays out well giving fans the action and character development that they would want.
Much has been made about the cameos in the film and while I will confirm that they are there I will not spoil them and I will say that several of the wilder theories are not true.
Director Sam Raimi has made a triumphant return to Super Hero movies as this outing combines what fans expect from a comic book-based film and blends it with supernatural horror to create a darker and more intense Marvel film than many have been used to.
The effects in the film are top-notch but it is the strong performances that drive the film not the effects and the movie opens up so many possibilities for the future. There are two bonus scenes in the credits and a promise that Doctor Strange will return. It has been reported that Marvel Producer Kevin Feige and his team have already plotted out the next ten years of Marvel films beyond what has already been announced and I cannot wait to see where they go next as Marvel has once again shown that by giving fans inter-connected stories that are well-planned and part of a living-universe, or in this case Multiverse, that they have plenty of material to come.
4 stars out of 5
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Promise (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Roughly a year ago, I found myself in a heated exchange with a friend about full and appropriate representation of people and history in films. I discussed the merits of expanding the scope beyond films about slavery and segregation with respect to African-Americans and stories of despair for other marginalized groups. It is, for me, demeaning to a people’s contributions in society and trivializes experiences. After engaging in what seemed to be an hour, my friend focused more on what she had to say that considering what I was addressing. It proved true when she stated “Well… at least black people have movies about slavery! You should be happy. We don’t even have a movie about the Armenian Genocide!” I was shocked, momentarily. I had never stated that one group deserved more of the spotlight or one’s history is more important that another, just that we need to have appropriate representation and inclusion of stories. All of our stories should be told and shared, especially the ones that are not widely known, understood, or even having a place within social studies courses in our public schools.
I knew of the Armenian Genocide and had a general understanding about the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire. There are several international films that address what took place or have the Genocide as part of the story. Even My Big Fat Greek Wedding makes reference to how Greeks were brutalized by the Turks during the period. What we were missing, at least in the realm of American Cinema, was a representation for US audiences to witness the horrors that these people fell victim to and, for some, were able to survive. In The Promise, audiences will get a history lesson about man’s inhumanity to man.
When I first heard that this film was in production, I was interesting in how it would pan out. Would it be truthful, as painful as it may be? Would they overdo certain aspects? How much would they play with the truth? The filmmakers faced the same problems as those who brought forth Schindler’s List, The Pianist, and Life is Beautiful: How do you approach telling the story of genocide? How do you draw people in to a story that they may not be familiar with? Are people ready?
Summaries of the film that I read online made it seem as though this would be an Armenian version of Pearl Harbor in that this was a love story in the foreground of a film that features violence in the background. The summaries were misleading, maybe by design or maybe by mistake. The Promise, stars Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) as a young Armenia medical student, and Christian Bale (The Dark Knight) as a journalist for the associated press reporting on developments in the Ottoman Empire as war breaks out. The film whose description touts a love triangle in the midst of the Great War is far from what this films discusses and presents. There is a love story, however, it is not what the film is about or what is able to get the attention of the viewers.
The film reveals the deep held animosity of Armenians and other minority groups in the Ottoman Empire. It demonstrates the depth of mistrust and mistreatment of people who cast as “the other.” It is not simplistic in approach nor relying on over-the-top examples of violence in order for those watching to feel something. The development of events and characters permits the audience to connect with each of the characters, their families, their circumstances, and look for any moment in which they can escape the violence that is being committed to them. In no way does this film minimize what the victims went through. It doesn’t trivialize their experience in order to gain one’s attention.
The Promise satisfies the need for a discussion to emerge allowing for a truer examination of the genocide’s place in world history and within the framing of World War I. It presents a more representative picture of what people bore witness to or experienced themselves. With history, we are continuously searching for the truth and ensuring that history itself does not remained buried or ignored. This films serves the purpose in ensuring that more people are aware of not only the Armenian genocide, but all of the moving pieces that come with people fighting against an injustice or violence that is committed upon them because they are seen as less than or undesirable. It is my hope that with this film, studios see the necessity of bringing more stories of struggle, survival, and the will of humanity to overcome hardship and violence to audiences. The Promise although highly overdue, is essential, poignant, timely, and necessary in order for all of us to see that people are not forgotten.
I knew of the Armenian Genocide and had a general understanding about the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire. There are several international films that address what took place or have the Genocide as part of the story. Even My Big Fat Greek Wedding makes reference to how Greeks were brutalized by the Turks during the period. What we were missing, at least in the realm of American Cinema, was a representation for US audiences to witness the horrors that these people fell victim to and, for some, were able to survive. In The Promise, audiences will get a history lesson about man’s inhumanity to man.
When I first heard that this film was in production, I was interesting in how it would pan out. Would it be truthful, as painful as it may be? Would they overdo certain aspects? How much would they play with the truth? The filmmakers faced the same problems as those who brought forth Schindler’s List, The Pianist, and Life is Beautiful: How do you approach telling the story of genocide? How do you draw people in to a story that they may not be familiar with? Are people ready?
Summaries of the film that I read online made it seem as though this would be an Armenian version of Pearl Harbor in that this was a love story in the foreground of a film that features violence in the background. The summaries were misleading, maybe by design or maybe by mistake. The Promise, stars Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) as a young Armenia medical student, and Christian Bale (The Dark Knight) as a journalist for the associated press reporting on developments in the Ottoman Empire as war breaks out. The film whose description touts a love triangle in the midst of the Great War is far from what this films discusses and presents. There is a love story, however, it is not what the film is about or what is able to get the attention of the viewers.
The film reveals the deep held animosity of Armenians and other minority groups in the Ottoman Empire. It demonstrates the depth of mistrust and mistreatment of people who cast as “the other.” It is not simplistic in approach nor relying on over-the-top examples of violence in order for those watching to feel something. The development of events and characters permits the audience to connect with each of the characters, their families, their circumstances, and look for any moment in which they can escape the violence that is being committed to them. In no way does this film minimize what the victims went through. It doesn’t trivialize their experience in order to gain one’s attention.
The Promise satisfies the need for a discussion to emerge allowing for a truer examination of the genocide’s place in world history and within the framing of World War I. It presents a more representative picture of what people bore witness to or experienced themselves. With history, we are continuously searching for the truth and ensuring that history itself does not remained buried or ignored. This films serves the purpose in ensuring that more people are aware of not only the Armenian genocide, but all of the moving pieces that come with people fighting against an injustice or violence that is committed upon them because they are seen as less than or undesirable. It is my hope that with this film, studios see the necessity of bringing more stories of struggle, survival, and the will of humanity to overcome hardship and violence to audiences. The Promise although highly overdue, is essential, poignant, timely, and necessary in order for all of us to see that people are not forgotten.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Midway (2019) in Movies
Aug 10, 2020
So bad...it's bad
There are times when you watch a film and you can just hear the conference room discussion that happened back at the studio before getting it green-lit...
Studio Flunky: "Remember the 1970's WWII flick MIDWAY starring Henry Fonda, Charlton Heston, Charles Coborn, Richard Mitchum and an All Star cast"?
Studio Head: "Yeah...I loved that flick..."
Studio Flunky: "We have a fairly weak script here that pretty much rips that off, but we have the Director of Independence Day ready to Direct, so we'd just need some strong actors and top notch special effects to pull it off".
Studio Head: " I love it. Just one thing..."
Studio Flunky: "What's that?"
Studio Head: "Cut the budget to about 1/10th of what you're asking for."
And that's the issue with the Roland Emrich 2019 version of MIDWAY...what the film lacks in script quality, it makes up with by casting weak actors and crossing them with cheap special effects.
Yeah...it doesn't work very well. No wonder it came and went pretty quickly in the theaters.
Patrick Wilson is the most successful in this film in his role as Intelligence Officer Edwin Layton who figures out what the Japanese are up to in the early days of World War II. He has some fun scenes with Brennan Brown as one of this "codebreakers" and his interactions with Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz are fun.
And...that's about it for the acting and interesting things in this film. Harrelson is wasted in his role (he clearly owed someone a favor to appear in what should be considered and extended cameo). Dennis Quaid overacts (as he is want to do) as "Bull" Halsey. Mandy Moore, Aaron Eckhart, Nick Jonas and Luke Evans bring no charisma to roles that were written with the hopes that an actor would bring charisma to them. They all bring "one dimension" and play the heck out of that singular character trait...but interesting characters that does not build.
And then there is the case of Ed Skrein (in the Charlton Heston role) as the "rogue fighter pilot, bucking the system, but learning through the course of this film that he would be more effective bringing his unique insights into the system than buck it". Skrein is my poster child for "warning...bad movie ahead." He has, in my opinion, "anti-charisma". He sucks a movie into his void and we, the audience, are stuck there with him. Of course, we spend most of the film with him...much to my chagrin.
At least, you say, today's special effects would rescue this film.
Nope...it looked like someone's kid slapped something together on his MAC. The depth of the EFX are slim, the color schemes don't seem to match and the actors didn't look at all like they were in the scene with the effects.
Nothing really works in this film. Avoid it at all costs. I can't even give you the "it's so bad it's good" line on this one.
It's so bad, it's bad.
Letter Grade "D"
2 Stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Studio Flunky: "Remember the 1970's WWII flick MIDWAY starring Henry Fonda, Charlton Heston, Charles Coborn, Richard Mitchum and an All Star cast"?
Studio Head: "Yeah...I loved that flick..."
Studio Flunky: "We have a fairly weak script here that pretty much rips that off, but we have the Director of Independence Day ready to Direct, so we'd just need some strong actors and top notch special effects to pull it off".
Studio Head: " I love it. Just one thing..."
Studio Flunky: "What's that?"
Studio Head: "Cut the budget to about 1/10th of what you're asking for."
And that's the issue with the Roland Emrich 2019 version of MIDWAY...what the film lacks in script quality, it makes up with by casting weak actors and crossing them with cheap special effects.
Yeah...it doesn't work very well. No wonder it came and went pretty quickly in the theaters.
Patrick Wilson is the most successful in this film in his role as Intelligence Officer Edwin Layton who figures out what the Japanese are up to in the early days of World War II. He has some fun scenes with Brennan Brown as one of this "codebreakers" and his interactions with Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz are fun.
And...that's about it for the acting and interesting things in this film. Harrelson is wasted in his role (he clearly owed someone a favor to appear in what should be considered and extended cameo). Dennis Quaid overacts (as he is want to do) as "Bull" Halsey. Mandy Moore, Aaron Eckhart, Nick Jonas and Luke Evans bring no charisma to roles that were written with the hopes that an actor would bring charisma to them. They all bring "one dimension" and play the heck out of that singular character trait...but interesting characters that does not build.
And then there is the case of Ed Skrein (in the Charlton Heston role) as the "rogue fighter pilot, bucking the system, but learning through the course of this film that he would be more effective bringing his unique insights into the system than buck it". Skrein is my poster child for "warning...bad movie ahead." He has, in my opinion, "anti-charisma". He sucks a movie into his void and we, the audience, are stuck there with him. Of course, we spend most of the film with him...much to my chagrin.
At least, you say, today's special effects would rescue this film.
Nope...it looked like someone's kid slapped something together on his MAC. The depth of the EFX are slim, the color schemes don't seem to match and the actors didn't look at all like they were in the scene with the effects.
Nothing really works in this film. Avoid it at all costs. I can't even give you the "it's so bad it's good" line on this one.
It's so bad, it's bad.
Letter Grade "D"
2 Stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beautiful Boy (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Trying to climb a slippery pole.
As John Lennon’s lyrics go:
“‘Cause it’s a long way to go,
A hard row to hoe
Yes, it’s a long way to go“
And so it proves for young Nic Sheff (Timothée Chalamet). For – based on a true story – Nic has progressively worked through the encyclopaedia of drugs until he has arrived at “C for Crystal Meth” where he is working through a recurring nightmare of addiction and attempted rehab.
What’s harder… being the victim of drugs or being the caring onlookers desperately hoping that this attempt to climb the slippery pole to recovery will be a successful one? This is reflected as a key aspect of the film, and as a parent it makes for a very hard watch. The ‘caring onlookers’ in this case are Nic’s father David (Steve Carell), his girlfriend Karen Barbour (Maura Tierney), the couple’s natural children Jasper (Christian Convery) and Daisy (Oakley Bull), and David’s ex-wife and Nic’s mother Vicki (Amy Ryan).
Flashbacks
This is only the 2nd English-language film from director Felix van Groeningen (after 2012’s ” The Broken Circle Breakdown”) and the film has its fair share of impressive directorial flourishes such that Felix might need to get added to that elusive list of “famous Belgians”! Not least among them is the use of flashbacks. The film starts with a 12 month flashback, but then throughout the story David flashes back to scenes of his boy’s childhood. Many of these reflect the regret in perhaps failing to identify ways he could have done things differently to avoid the current crisis.
While many of these flashbacks are sudden and unexpected, I didn’t find them confusing to follow although I can see how they might annoy some viewers who prefer a more ‘linear’ storytelling approach.
The turns
Above all, it is the acting performances that make this film, and the four key cast members all turn in memorable turns. It’s excruciating watching Carell’s parental anguish and then (like a blast of light) his realization of a truth he’d been avoiding for a long time. It’s Chalamet though who truly shines, delivering fully on the realization of the tortured and self-torturing Nic. Already nominated for a Golden Globe, I would have thought another Oscar nomination is assured for this.
ER’s Maura Tierney also excels in a quieter supporting role: something that generally seems to be her niche at the movies.
Part of the curriculum
This is most definitely a “Father Ted” film…. it’s a gruelling movie from beginning to end and as such it feels a lot longer than it’s 2 hour running time suggests. But it is well worth the effort. A drama that really delivers on its message: “just say no”.
It rather frustrates me that the film is a UK 15 certificate. Not that I’m criticising the BBFC here, since with graphic drug taking, a lot of choice language and one (not overly graphic) sex scene, the rating is appropriate. However this would seem to me to be required viewing by every 13 year old, since if Chalomet’s performance can’t drill the message home to not climb onto that pole in the first place, then noone can.
“‘Cause it’s a long way to go,
A hard row to hoe
Yes, it’s a long way to go“
And so it proves for young Nic Sheff (Timothée Chalamet). For – based on a true story – Nic has progressively worked through the encyclopaedia of drugs until he has arrived at “C for Crystal Meth” where he is working through a recurring nightmare of addiction and attempted rehab.
What’s harder… being the victim of drugs or being the caring onlookers desperately hoping that this attempt to climb the slippery pole to recovery will be a successful one? This is reflected as a key aspect of the film, and as a parent it makes for a very hard watch. The ‘caring onlookers’ in this case are Nic’s father David (Steve Carell), his girlfriend Karen Barbour (Maura Tierney), the couple’s natural children Jasper (Christian Convery) and Daisy (Oakley Bull), and David’s ex-wife and Nic’s mother Vicki (Amy Ryan).
Flashbacks
This is only the 2nd English-language film from director Felix van Groeningen (after 2012’s ” The Broken Circle Breakdown”) and the film has its fair share of impressive directorial flourishes such that Felix might need to get added to that elusive list of “famous Belgians”! Not least among them is the use of flashbacks. The film starts with a 12 month flashback, but then throughout the story David flashes back to scenes of his boy’s childhood. Many of these reflect the regret in perhaps failing to identify ways he could have done things differently to avoid the current crisis.
While many of these flashbacks are sudden and unexpected, I didn’t find them confusing to follow although I can see how they might annoy some viewers who prefer a more ‘linear’ storytelling approach.
The turns
Above all, it is the acting performances that make this film, and the four key cast members all turn in memorable turns. It’s excruciating watching Carell’s parental anguish and then (like a blast of light) his realization of a truth he’d been avoiding for a long time. It’s Chalamet though who truly shines, delivering fully on the realization of the tortured and self-torturing Nic. Already nominated for a Golden Globe, I would have thought another Oscar nomination is assured for this.
ER’s Maura Tierney also excels in a quieter supporting role: something that generally seems to be her niche at the movies.
Part of the curriculum
This is most definitely a “Father Ted” film…. it’s a gruelling movie from beginning to end and as such it feels a lot longer than it’s 2 hour running time suggests. But it is well worth the effort. A drama that really delivers on its message: “just say no”.
It rather frustrates me that the film is a UK 15 certificate. Not that I’m criticising the BBFC here, since with graphic drug taking, a lot of choice language and one (not overly graphic) sex scene, the rating is appropriate. However this would seem to me to be required viewing by every 13 year old, since if Chalomet’s performance can’t drill the message home to not climb onto that pole in the first place, then noone can.