Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Great but disappointing
Frank Sheeran starts in humble beginnings driving a meat truck while trying to make a living to support his family. He takes the favor of the right connect mobsters and quickly rises through the ranks to become one of its elite. He perpetrates countless villainous activities including murder, bribery, extortion and general unpleasantness toward his fellow man to the point where it almost becomes routine.
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Aug 16, 2020
1917 is a remarkable film through and through, and I can't praise it enough.
The cast, the cinematography, the set pieces, the music score are all outstanding.
The plot revolves around Lance Corporals Schofield (George McKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) embarking on a seemingly impossible mission across no man's land in Northern France, deep into enemy territory to deliver a message to a fellow regiment, with the aim of preventing them from walking into a trap and potentially losing 1600 soldiers.
The two lead actors are fantastic, portraying two soldiers leaning on each other to achieve their goal.
The journey that takes place is tough and harrowing at times. There's a point about half way through the movie where the pace just doesn't slow down once. It's extremely intense, and bolstered infinitely by the shooting style.
The film is shot in a way that gives the viewer the impression of a one take movie. It's edited together so well that it appears seamless, and allows for some truly breathtaking moments, and never lets you break away from events unfolding. It caught my attention immediately and never lost it for one second.
This method allows for a very stylish looking experience, but it's a kind of style that never detracts or takes away from the horror of war. It's a perfect combination, ensuring that scenes of action feel relentless, whilst sadder moments are suitably poignant and perfectly executed. The emotional beats in 1917 are something else and took me by surprise. I have no shame in saying that I was fighting back tears a couple of times.
By the times the credits rolled, I was just sat in stunned silence, something that has only happened to me a few times before when it comes to movies.
1917 is pretty much perfect. A great war film, a great drama, and en effective exploration of what friendship and duty really mean.
Make the time to watch it if you haven't already!
The cast, the cinematography, the set pieces, the music score are all outstanding.
The plot revolves around Lance Corporals Schofield (George McKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) embarking on a seemingly impossible mission across no man's land in Northern France, deep into enemy territory to deliver a message to a fellow regiment, with the aim of preventing them from walking into a trap and potentially losing 1600 soldiers.
The two lead actors are fantastic, portraying two soldiers leaning on each other to achieve their goal.
The journey that takes place is tough and harrowing at times. There's a point about half way through the movie where the pace just doesn't slow down once. It's extremely intense, and bolstered infinitely by the shooting style.
The film is shot in a way that gives the viewer the impression of a one take movie. It's edited together so well that it appears seamless, and allows for some truly breathtaking moments, and never lets you break away from events unfolding. It caught my attention immediately and never lost it for one second.
This method allows for a very stylish looking experience, but it's a kind of style that never detracts or takes away from the horror of war. It's a perfect combination, ensuring that scenes of action feel relentless, whilst sadder moments are suitably poignant and perfectly executed. The emotional beats in 1917 are something else and took me by surprise. I have no shame in saying that I was fighting back tears a couple of times.
By the times the credits rolled, I was just sat in stunned silence, something that has only happened to me a few times before when it comes to movies.
1917 is pretty much perfect. A great war film, a great drama, and en effective exploration of what friendship and duty really mean.
Make the time to watch it if you haven't already!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Halloween Kills (2021) in Movies
Oct 17, 2021
I can safely say, that I'm not 100% sure whether I liked Halloween Kills or not. There were parts that I genuinely enjoyed, in no small part thanks to Michael Myers. As in Halloween (2018), this Myers is a brutal and unforgiving one. His aesthetic is great and he's intimidating as fuck. This movie pulls no punches in making him out to be a monster, shying further away from the days of rooting for slasher villains. To top it off, Kills easily has some of the best Michael moments in the entire franchise. This is bolstered by some truly fantastic cinematography.
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
It has felt like a long wait to get to this film, there was a lot of talk when Midway was coming out so I was very glad it finally arrived.
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2103 KP) rated Ghosted in Books
Dec 17, 2018
Mean Girl Gets Scrooged
Ellie Charles rules Lincoln Heights Middle School. Everyone wants to be her friend and everyone wants to please her. She's top of the class academically, president of the student body, and chairperson of every committee that matters. Maybe she rules with an iron fist, but no one seems to mind - at least as best Ellie can tell.
The book opens the day of the winter dance. Naturally, Ellie is chair of the dance committee, and it is going to be awesome! However, when Ellie falls off a ladder, she finds herself having a freaky out of body experience. Suddenly, she's back five years ago when her best friend, Marley, and Marley's two dads lived across the street. Back before her father left her and her mother right before Christmas. Why is she witnessing these events again? And who is the Girl in Black who seems to be following Ellie on this trip down memory lane?
Being a big fan of A Christmas Carol, I had to give this modern middle grade take on the classic a try. While I enjoyed aspects of it, including a few clever nods to the original, I felt the book was lacking overall. Ellie is just so mean it is hard to root for her. The book spends much of the time in the past, and Ellie's sad past doesn't help things. The expected ending seems abrupt and short, so we don't get as big a pay off as we would like after our trip with Ellie. Then again, it might just be that I'm not the target audience. Either way, this won't be making my list of beloved spins on the Dicken's classic.
The book opens the day of the winter dance. Naturally, Ellie is chair of the dance committee, and it is going to be awesome! However, when Ellie falls off a ladder, she finds herself having a freaky out of body experience. Suddenly, she's back five years ago when her best friend, Marley, and Marley's two dads lived across the street. Back before her father left her and her mother right before Christmas. Why is she witnessing these events again? And who is the Girl in Black who seems to be following Ellie on this trip down memory lane?
Being a big fan of A Christmas Carol, I had to give this modern middle grade take on the classic a try. While I enjoyed aspects of it, including a few clever nods to the original, I felt the book was lacking overall. Ellie is just so mean it is hard to root for her. The book spends much of the time in the past, and Ellie's sad past doesn't help things. The expected ending seems abrupt and short, so we don't get as big a pay off as we would like after our trip with Ellie. Then again, it might just be that I'm not the target audience. Either way, this won't be making my list of beloved spins on the Dicken's classic.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Last Dickens in Books
Nov 18, 2019
I will hold my hand up to two things at the start of this review. Firstly I am drawn to fiction based on other fiction, and secondly I'm not a big Dickens fan. For various reasons I just don't find him an interesting read.
However I can't deny his impact as a novelist at a time when reading as a past time was only just reaching the masses. And so this book looked intriguing.
Primarily set immediately after the death of the famous author, having completed exactly half of the installments of his latest book - The Mystery of Edwin Drood - James Osgood, the junior partner in his American publishers is sent to England to try to track down any other parts of the manuscript.
However dark forces are afoot; there are two murders related to the Dickens papers in short order and Osgood is attacked on the ship to England. Clearly someone does not want any more of Drood to be published.
Pearl has taken one of the greatest literary mysteries of all (there really are no clues about how Drood was supposed to conclude) and wrapped it in another fictional conundrum. He has clearly researched all of the details very well and uses real people - including Osgood and Dickens himself- along with fictional characters to tell the story. This gives the plot a certain solidity because so much of it is based in reality, with the fabricated parts showing through the cracks.
The narrative moves between 1870 and Osgood's quest, to India at the same time where Frank Dickens (son of Charles) is investigating drug smuggling and to 1868 when Dickens is performing a reading tour of America.
The plot is more-or-less highly plausible, just some coincidental points that require a little suspension of disbelief. The writing is excellent throughout, highly descriptive and particularly good at capturing the personalities of the characters (as would be expected given how carefully this has been researched). There are several action scenes at the book progresses and these are handled well. The villains are unmasked in classical style, gloating with our heroes apparently doomed only for the tables to be turned.
Honestly I was expecting this to be reasonably interesting, highlighting aspects of Dickens' life and death with a little light murder mystery thrown in. In the end I would call this nothing less than a triumph and will definitely be looking to read more of Pearl's work.
It's still not tempted me to read any Dickens, though...
However I can't deny his impact as a novelist at a time when reading as a past time was only just reaching the masses. And so this book looked intriguing.
Primarily set immediately after the death of the famous author, having completed exactly half of the installments of his latest book - The Mystery of Edwin Drood - James Osgood, the junior partner in his American publishers is sent to England to try to track down any other parts of the manuscript.
However dark forces are afoot; there are two murders related to the Dickens papers in short order and Osgood is attacked on the ship to England. Clearly someone does not want any more of Drood to be published.
Pearl has taken one of the greatest literary mysteries of all (there really are no clues about how Drood was supposed to conclude) and wrapped it in another fictional conundrum. He has clearly researched all of the details very well and uses real people - including Osgood and Dickens himself- along with fictional characters to tell the story. This gives the plot a certain solidity because so much of it is based in reality, with the fabricated parts showing through the cracks.
The narrative moves between 1870 and Osgood's quest, to India at the same time where Frank Dickens (son of Charles) is investigating drug smuggling and to 1868 when Dickens is performing a reading tour of America.
The plot is more-or-less highly plausible, just some coincidental points that require a little suspension of disbelief. The writing is excellent throughout, highly descriptive and particularly good at capturing the personalities of the characters (as would be expected given how carefully this has been researched). There are several action scenes at the book progresses and these are handled well. The villains are unmasked in classical style, gloating with our heroes apparently doomed only for the tables to be turned.
Honestly I was expecting this to be reasonably interesting, highlighting aspects of Dickens' life and death with a little light murder mystery thrown in. In the end I would call this nothing less than a triumph and will definitely be looking to read more of Pearl's work.
It's still not tempted me to read any Dickens, though...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021
Good companion piece to CITIZEN KANE
Orson Welles’ 1941 masterpiece CITIZEN KANE is truly a remarkable work of art (especially for the time it was created) and it regularly lands in either the #1 or #2 spot on my list of all-time favorite films (battling back and forth with THE GODFATHER - the one that ends up at #1 is usually the one I have watched most recently), so I am a sucker for films that are about (or around) the making of this classic.
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Precious Blood (The Blessed, #1) in Books
Nov 3, 2018
Not for everyone, but I enjoyed it
What I liked about this book is it was able to draw you in slowly to the plot and it unfolds gradually by introducing you to the main characters and their backgrounds. You can’t help but keep reading to see what will happen next. Your curiosity is piqued and it’s worth reading through. There is a chapter here and there that lets you think ‘Gee what the heck am I reading here’ but it makes up for it wholeheartedly towards the ending of the book.
The plot and the pace is slow but steady. You’re taken through each girl’s perspective and when they finally come together, if you can bypass the pettiness and mean girl attitude (some parts were quite fun to read, the comebacks are something to be filed away for future use should need arise) they actually do make a solid team. Each girl has their own story and their own pain to deal with. Of the three, I’d taken a liking to Cecilia. She’s a tough one and although all three have gone through a substantial amount of pain, Cecilia seems to be the most likable and the most independent (plus she’s a Rocker girl. Who doesn’t think Rocker Girls are cool?)
As the story unfolds, it gets chaotic towards the last third of the novel. Pretty good action - brutal at times so might not be for the faint of heart, and of course it leaves room for more things to come (two books follow after this one). Understandably this book might not be for everyone. Gratuitous swearing, references to Catholicism which may be offensive to some, some serious what the F chapters that make you wonder what kind of shrooms they’re on, and references to rape are mentioned in the book.
So while it may not be for everyone, I was surprised that I enjoyed reading this one so much. Although it took awhile for the book to gain momentum and this thing with Sebastian being a somewhat Charles Manson wannabe without the murders is a bit tedious, it was actually pretty good. However it comes across as a book that either you’ll really like, or you’ll really hate. So, when in doubt, just take it out of the library and save your money for other things.
The plot and the pace is slow but steady. You’re taken through each girl’s perspective and when they finally come together, if you can bypass the pettiness and mean girl attitude (some parts were quite fun to read, the comebacks are something to be filed away for future use should need arise) they actually do make a solid team. Each girl has their own story and their own pain to deal with. Of the three, I’d taken a liking to Cecilia. She’s a tough one and although all three have gone through a substantial amount of pain, Cecilia seems to be the most likable and the most independent (plus she’s a Rocker girl. Who doesn’t think Rocker Girls are cool?)
As the story unfolds, it gets chaotic towards the last third of the novel. Pretty good action - brutal at times so might not be for the faint of heart, and of course it leaves room for more things to come (two books follow after this one). Understandably this book might not be for everyone. Gratuitous swearing, references to Catholicism which may be offensive to some, some serious what the F chapters that make you wonder what kind of shrooms they’re on, and references to rape are mentioned in the book.
So while it may not be for everyone, I was surprised that I enjoyed reading this one so much. Although it took awhile for the book to gain momentum and this thing with Sebastian being a somewhat Charles Manson wannabe without the murders is a bit tedious, it was actually pretty good. However it comes across as a book that either you’ll really like, or you’ll really hate. So, when in doubt, just take it out of the library and save your money for other things.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
These X-Men end not with a Bang but with a Whimper
"This is how it ends,not with a bang, but with a whimper".
Running a successful movie franchise is a tricky thing. For every franchise that ends successfully (the original Harry Potter series, the recent Avengers), there are many, many more that just sort of peter out (The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, every version of Star Trek), and, unfortunately, this run of the X-MEN is finishing up with a look of boredom and disinterest.
And that's too bad for the DARK PHOENIX story line had great, dramatic potential to go with a series of whiz-bang special effect set pieces that should have been spectacular. Telling the tale of erswhile X-Men "hero", Jean Grey, who is turned into a villain and battles her former mates, DARK PHOENIX is filled with missed opportunities.
Let's start with the lackluster Direction and lame script - both by Simon Kinberg - a Producer and sometime writer who is making his Feature Film Directorial debut with this film. He should stay with Producing. His direction is limp and uninspired which fits in well with his uninspiring dialogue and clunky interactions and plot machinations.
At least the top notch actors can save this turkey, right?
Nope. For the most part, they are just as uninspired and mediocre as the direction and writing and that is too bad for they are a strong collection of performers. James McAvoy is just lost as Charles Xavier. I can see the look in his eyes as he is thinking to himself "what is my character trying to do here"? I didn't believe for a second that he believed anything his character was saying and doing. Same goes for the usually reliable Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy/Beast. The script has these two at odds with each and they both act these scenes with a "we don't buy this contrived fight either" chagrined look.
The usually reliable Jessica Chastain is wasted as the main villain in this film, a mysterious figure who serves as the anti-Charles Xavier mentor to Jean Grey (Sophie Turner, more on her later). It looks to me that she was given the "George Lucas/Natalie Portman/Star Wars: Episode 1" acting guideline - be one note and monotonous and take out any hint of emotion. Which also takes out any hint of interest.
As for Turner, I'm sorry to say this about an actress that I generally loved in GAME OF THRONES, but she is just plain bad in her role as the conflicted Jean Grey. Her character is torn between the good and the bad, but instead of acting that, she says it over and over again "I don't know what's happening to me", "I feel torn". She (and Director/Writer Kinberg) violate the #1 rule in movies - "Show, don't tell". They "tell" over and over and don't take the time to show. Disappointing wouldn't begin to describe my reaction to Turner's performance.
At least Jennifer Lawrence is there to ground this film and bring some of her star power, right? Nope. She waltzes through the few scenes she has in this film with the look of "I am contractually obligated to be here".
Well...how about Even Peters who was a bit of a breakout as Quicksilver? Nope...they, inexplicably, sideline his character fairly early on in this film.
The only saving grace in this movie is the great Michael Fassbender as Magneto. He was a welcome, charismatic presence in this film that drew my attention - and interest - the second he appeared on screen. It was great to see him and I found myself rooting for him - no matter what. Doesn't matter that Magneto's presence in this film is shoe-horned in. You could take his character out of this film and the outcomes probably wouldn't change a bit. But...I don't care...at least there was someone interesting to watch.
At least there are decent action scenes, right? Nope. Kinberg chooses to use the quick/cut edit confuse the audience style of action to cover mistakes in both choreography and geography and figures a quick cut and an explosion can cover lack of emotional commitment and interesting fight choreography.
This film closes this Chapter on these X-Men and (besides Fassbender and an "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE" moment that was pretty cool) I say good riddance. With Disney's purchase of Fox and Marvel, the X-Men can now be incorporated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that can only be an improvement on this.
Letter Grade C+ (Fassbender's performance keeps this from being a total failure)
5 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Running a successful movie franchise is a tricky thing. For every franchise that ends successfully (the original Harry Potter series, the recent Avengers), there are many, many more that just sort of peter out (The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, every version of Star Trek), and, unfortunately, this run of the X-MEN is finishing up with a look of boredom and disinterest.
And that's too bad for the DARK PHOENIX story line had great, dramatic potential to go with a series of whiz-bang special effect set pieces that should have been spectacular. Telling the tale of erswhile X-Men "hero", Jean Grey, who is turned into a villain and battles her former mates, DARK PHOENIX is filled with missed opportunities.
Let's start with the lackluster Direction and lame script - both by Simon Kinberg - a Producer and sometime writer who is making his Feature Film Directorial debut with this film. He should stay with Producing. His direction is limp and uninspired which fits in well with his uninspiring dialogue and clunky interactions and plot machinations.
At least the top notch actors can save this turkey, right?
Nope. For the most part, they are just as uninspired and mediocre as the direction and writing and that is too bad for they are a strong collection of performers. James McAvoy is just lost as Charles Xavier. I can see the look in his eyes as he is thinking to himself "what is my character trying to do here"? I didn't believe for a second that he believed anything his character was saying and doing. Same goes for the usually reliable Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy/Beast. The script has these two at odds with each and they both act these scenes with a "we don't buy this contrived fight either" chagrined look.
The usually reliable Jessica Chastain is wasted as the main villain in this film, a mysterious figure who serves as the anti-Charles Xavier mentor to Jean Grey (Sophie Turner, more on her later). It looks to me that she was given the "George Lucas/Natalie Portman/Star Wars: Episode 1" acting guideline - be one note and monotonous and take out any hint of emotion. Which also takes out any hint of interest.
As for Turner, I'm sorry to say this about an actress that I generally loved in GAME OF THRONES, but she is just plain bad in her role as the conflicted Jean Grey. Her character is torn between the good and the bad, but instead of acting that, she says it over and over again "I don't know what's happening to me", "I feel torn". She (and Director/Writer Kinberg) violate the #1 rule in movies - "Show, don't tell". They "tell" over and over and don't take the time to show. Disappointing wouldn't begin to describe my reaction to Turner's performance.
At least Jennifer Lawrence is there to ground this film and bring some of her star power, right? Nope. She waltzes through the few scenes she has in this film with the look of "I am contractually obligated to be here".
Well...how about Even Peters who was a bit of a breakout as Quicksilver? Nope...they, inexplicably, sideline his character fairly early on in this film.
The only saving grace in this movie is the great Michael Fassbender as Magneto. He was a welcome, charismatic presence in this film that drew my attention - and interest - the second he appeared on screen. It was great to see him and I found myself rooting for him - no matter what. Doesn't matter that Magneto's presence in this film is shoe-horned in. You could take his character out of this film and the outcomes probably wouldn't change a bit. But...I don't care...at least there was someone interesting to watch.
At least there are decent action scenes, right? Nope. Kinberg chooses to use the quick/cut edit confuse the audience style of action to cover mistakes in both choreography and geography and figures a quick cut and an explosion can cover lack of emotional commitment and interesting fight choreography.
This film closes this Chapter on these X-Men and (besides Fassbender and an "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE" moment that was pretty cool) I say good riddance. With Disney's purchase of Fox and Marvel, the X-Men can now be incorporated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that can only be an improvement on this.
Letter Grade C+ (Fassbender's performance keeps this from being a total failure)
5 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gosford Park (2001) in Movies
Mar 24, 2020
Underneath it all...and Altman film
Do you like DOWNTON ABBEY? Do you like Agatha Christie Murder Mysteries? Do you like the 1970's British television series UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS? If your answer to any of these questions is yes, then do I have a film for you.
GOSFORD PARK is an English Murder Mystery, set in the 1920's, featuring an All Star Cast, Directed by a 7 time Oscar nominee. It received critical acclaim in the year it was released (2001), earned 7 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture) and won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Julian Fellowes...who would go on to create/write DOWNTON ABBEY).
Set in an English Country Manor, overseen by overbearing Lord William McCordle (Michael Gambon, the 2nd Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films), GOSFORD PARK tells of the trials, tribulations, loves and death (yes, there's a murder) of a host of characters both Upstairs (the wealthy) and Downstairs (the servants).
And what a cast it is! Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, Charles Dance, Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander and Bob Balaban lead the group of the wealthy, while Helen Mirren, Alan Bates, Clive Owen, Kelly MacDonald, Eileen Atkins and Emily Watson head up the cast of servants below the stairs.
Both Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren were nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for their work in this film (both losing to Jennifer Connelly for A BEAUTIFUL MIND).
Directed by Robert Altman (M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE), GOSFORD PARK is much of what you would expect from an Altman film...many, many people living their lives, sometimes intersecting with others, often times just going off on their own, tied together by the circumstances of being in this giant manor house on a weekend of a murder.
It is an ambitious, "Oscar bait" film that succeeds for the most part. And, if you are into the costumes, sets, Interior Design and intimate scenes of people talking, then you will be richly rewarded by this film.
I loved this film when it first came out and was anxiously looking forward to re-visiting it.
While I still liked it during this viewing, I did find the pacing to be languid and I started finding myself being frustrated by threads and character direction that just sort of petered out or ended all together with no real resolution. I know this was on purpose, for Altman would argue that this is what happens in real life, but I found this frustrating.
But this film has much, much going for it and if you haven't seen this - or haven't seen this in awhile - and are a fan of these types of films, then GOSFORD PARK will be a very rewarding 2 hours and 11 minutes of a movie going experience.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
GOSFORD PARK is an English Murder Mystery, set in the 1920's, featuring an All Star Cast, Directed by a 7 time Oscar nominee. It received critical acclaim in the year it was released (2001), earned 7 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture) and won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Julian Fellowes...who would go on to create/write DOWNTON ABBEY).
Set in an English Country Manor, overseen by overbearing Lord William McCordle (Michael Gambon, the 2nd Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films), GOSFORD PARK tells of the trials, tribulations, loves and death (yes, there's a murder) of a host of characters both Upstairs (the wealthy) and Downstairs (the servants).
And what a cast it is! Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, Charles Dance, Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander and Bob Balaban lead the group of the wealthy, while Helen Mirren, Alan Bates, Clive Owen, Kelly MacDonald, Eileen Atkins and Emily Watson head up the cast of servants below the stairs.
Both Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren were nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for their work in this film (both losing to Jennifer Connelly for A BEAUTIFUL MIND).
Directed by Robert Altman (M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE), GOSFORD PARK is much of what you would expect from an Altman film...many, many people living their lives, sometimes intersecting with others, often times just going off on their own, tied together by the circumstances of being in this giant manor house on a weekend of a murder.
It is an ambitious, "Oscar bait" film that succeeds for the most part. And, if you are into the costumes, sets, Interior Design and intimate scenes of people talking, then you will be richly rewarded by this film.
I loved this film when it first came out and was anxiously looking forward to re-visiting it.
While I still liked it during this viewing, I did find the pacing to be languid and I started finding myself being frustrated by threads and character direction that just sort of petered out or ended all together with no real resolution. I know this was on purpose, for Altman would argue that this is what happens in real life, but I found this frustrating.
But this film has much, much going for it and if you haven't seen this - or haven't seen this in awhile - and are a fan of these types of films, then GOSFORD PARK will be a very rewarding 2 hours and 11 minutes of a movie going experience.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)