Search
Search results
What am I Still Doing Here?: My Life as Me
Book
'Unremittingly glorious. I and the world demand more and we shall thump our tin mugs on the table...
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Legion (2010) in Movies
Jun 30, 2018
Filled with cheese, but the cheese just makes the other parts stick together so well.
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review does contain MILD spoilers.
Legion is one of my favorite movies. I’ve seen it countless times and it has never lost it’s appeal. It’s ridiculous, filled with cliches, and definitely tries too hard for the reflective drama. It’s charmingly flawed and I love it.
Legion is filled with cheese, but the cheese just makes the other parts stick together so well. Like the Old Lady and the Ice Cream Man. My favorite scene in Legion involves the old lady. They made an excellent choice in casting there. You know from the moment that she says “But it’s gonna burn… your f*cking baby is gonna burn” that the evil is there, and it’s ON. What immediately always leaves me in stitches. (Yes, always. I’ve seen this movie like 5 times now.) And the Ice Cream man? Well, he defined the role for me. Freaking creepy.
And the cast members do their best to pull off the most ridiculous lines with a straight face. Willa Holland, whom you might be familiar with from The O.C., Gossip Girl, and Arrow, brings the sarcasm full bore. Dennis Quaid does disgruntled do-gooder father pretty well. (Although, I liked him better in this type of role in Day After Tomorrow.) Jeep – played by Lucas Black – is a very bland character, but that’s to be expected for the saintly protector type role he’s destined to play. Charles S. Dutton doesn’t have a lot of screen time, but when he’s there, you pay attention to him.
Legion is well-acted, nicely directed, and gives its horror a thin coating of humor. There’s plenty of action in the later half to keep almost anyone happy. There is really nothing new as this type of movie gets pretty endlessly recycled. However, put up against the others of its type, it stands out for me.
Legion is one of my favorite movies. I’ve seen it countless times and it has never lost it’s appeal. It’s ridiculous, filled with cliches, and definitely tries too hard for the reflective drama. It’s charmingly flawed and I love it.
Legion is filled with cheese, but the cheese just makes the other parts stick together so well. Like the Old Lady and the Ice Cream Man. My favorite scene in Legion involves the old lady. They made an excellent choice in casting there. You know from the moment that she says “But it’s gonna burn… your f*cking baby is gonna burn” that the evil is there, and it’s ON. What immediately always leaves me in stitches. (Yes, always. I’ve seen this movie like 5 times now.) And the Ice Cream man? Well, he defined the role for me. Freaking creepy.
And the cast members do their best to pull off the most ridiculous lines with a straight face. Willa Holland, whom you might be familiar with from The O.C., Gossip Girl, and Arrow, brings the sarcasm full bore. Dennis Quaid does disgruntled do-gooder father pretty well. (Although, I liked him better in this type of role in Day After Tomorrow.) Jeep – played by Lucas Black – is a very bland character, but that’s to be expected for the saintly protector type role he’s destined to play. Charles S. Dutton doesn’t have a lot of screen time, but when he’s there, you pay attention to him.
Legion is well-acted, nicely directed, and gives its horror a thin coating of humor. There’s plenty of action in the later half to keep almost anyone happy. There is really nothing new as this type of movie gets pretty endlessly recycled. However, put up against the others of its type, it stands out for me.
CARDIO3®Echocardiography HD
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
Comprehensive Atlas of Echocardiography is the first iOS version of CARDIO3®ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY...
Chance Encounters: Tales from a Varied Life
Book
"I met Frank Sinatra through Robert Maxwell. That's if you can be said to have met someone who was...
Jane Austen & Adlestrop: Her Other Family
Book
The story of Jane Austen's links with the idyllic village of Adlestrop and Stoneleigh Abbey, the...
The Greatest Raid of All
Book
A vivid account of the famous St Nazaire Raid that demonstrates the sheer bravery of the British...
Benedick Lewis (3001 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
Brilliant acting (2 more)
Multiple examples of excellent camera techniques, homaging a lot from that era
Superb direction
Rushed third act (1 more)
Could be too long for some people
A film for people who like to go to the cinema
Once upon a time in Hollywood is not QT’s best film but certainly not the worst. That award goes to Death Proof. It was a difficult film to market because when I got wind of his new film, it was advertised as revolving around the Sharon Tate murders/Charles “Charlie” Bronson but this film is so much more than that. The whole story meanders around like the roads around Cielo Drive, almost to the point of not really going anywhere and really just to enjoy the characters in this fictionalised retelling of that period.
It is quite astonishing that there are still people out there who would think this is a faithful interpretation of what happened and more so that QT has to publicly say ‘this is a story of fiction’ but I am no expert on the case, even though over the years I have dabbled into it through various books and news reports.
The main thing to get across is to go in with no expectations other than QT inevitably will put his spin on things and that, really, is what will draw audiences to this film. There’s always a bit to latch onto with QT films whether it be a character or the world he has created for those characters to live in or a reference to another film or, indeed, something else. It is what makes QT so appealing. He tells stories the way he wants to tell them. That said, the third act (which actually deals with the murders), although fun and frenetic, feels a little rushed and could possibly shows signs of studio meddling with what QT wanted to focus on. That’s the main criticism of this film but the rest of it will have film academics in years to come pick apart individual sequences and dissecting them into pointless philosophical notions and semantical (is that a word?) studies that are completely off point for a long time. Do I want to bore you with how clever QT is by being able to subtly put across to the viewer through camera techniques and direction his influences of 1950s and 60s television and cinema? No, if you’re a cinema fan you’ll get those references and more on repeat viewings. If you’re not a cinema fan, then it establishes enough world for you to warrant the hyperbole ‘fantastic escapism’. The point is you’re going to enjoy this film if you enjoy going to the cinema. Well, most of you. Some may spite that statement and say Legally Blonde is where it is at. Well, if that’s your stance, go rewatch Legally Blonde as the people who came to the cinema to actually enjoy this film have no time for that viewpoint.
See this if you love QT films. He throws in a lot of references to his body of work to make you nod to fellow audience members and silently say ‘I got that reference’. If you’re not a QT fan but a lover of cinema, especially American cinema, you’ll get more than just a kick out of it. There’s even something for the casual viewer if you’re willing to invest your time in it.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Untouchables (1987) in Movies
Dec 16, 2020 (Updated Dec 16, 2020)
A little melodramatic
(not) Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Untouchables
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Moonstone in Books
Nov 20, 2019
Of all the books I had to read at school, The Moonstone was probably the only novel I really enjoyed. It is one of the first 'whodunnit' type of books and, remarkably, it manages to hit virtually every requirement of the genre dead centre. If this book was written today, it would still be a classic.
The Moonstone of the title is a rare yellow diamond, stolen from an Indian shrine by colonialists. Thought to be unlucky it is left to the young Rachel Verinder. The night after her 18th birthday party the stone is stolen from her rooms, and the rest of the novel describes how the various players eventually manage to solve the crime.
The plot features twists and turns galore, false trails and red herrings enough for two detective stories. Although the crime involved is 'only' theft rather than the more usual murder it is no less engaging as a story. The characters are well drawn and - social reformer that Collins was - there are strong women and intelligent and interesting servants as well as the landed gentry and philanthropists that inhabit the world of country estates in the mid 19th century that the novel is set in.
One feature of the book is that the story is told from the viewpoint of a number of the players. Firstly (and for nearly half the book) we are introduced to the Verinders and the theft by Gabriel Betteredge, a long serving family retainer who is head of the staff and a sort of de facto butler. Betteredge's narrative is charming and witty, full of dry asides and observations. His habit of picking passages from Robinson Crusoe and applying them to daily life is a quirk that is completely in keeping with his character.
Once the story moves to London, the narrative is taken up by various other characters, sometimes just for a short journal entry, sometimes for extended periods of time. Collins imbues each of these parts with a different voice really skillfully, keeping each character very separate.
The solution to the mystery of who stole the diamond and why is convoluted but also very simple. The whole story is well crafted and fits together really well.
The only negative points really are those imposed on Collins by the time he was writing this. There is an overlong introduction about the diamond in India (it seems that in Victorian novels the long winded introduction is somehow expected by the reader) and the pace slows somewhat in London as there is a lot of description about the character's social standings and financial affairs that just aren't as relevant today.
Nevertheless this really is as good a book as I remember. I certainly rate Collins a lot higher than Charles Dickens as a writer. Definitely recommended for anyone who likes a detective mystery which will keep the reader guessing until the very end.
The Moonstone of the title is a rare yellow diamond, stolen from an Indian shrine by colonialists. Thought to be unlucky it is left to the young Rachel Verinder. The night after her 18th birthday party the stone is stolen from her rooms, and the rest of the novel describes how the various players eventually manage to solve the crime.
The plot features twists and turns galore, false trails and red herrings enough for two detective stories. Although the crime involved is 'only' theft rather than the more usual murder it is no less engaging as a story. The characters are well drawn and - social reformer that Collins was - there are strong women and intelligent and interesting servants as well as the landed gentry and philanthropists that inhabit the world of country estates in the mid 19th century that the novel is set in.
One feature of the book is that the story is told from the viewpoint of a number of the players. Firstly (and for nearly half the book) we are introduced to the Verinders and the theft by Gabriel Betteredge, a long serving family retainer who is head of the staff and a sort of de facto butler. Betteredge's narrative is charming and witty, full of dry asides and observations. His habit of picking passages from Robinson Crusoe and applying them to daily life is a quirk that is completely in keeping with his character.
Once the story moves to London, the narrative is taken up by various other characters, sometimes just for a short journal entry, sometimes for extended periods of time. Collins imbues each of these parts with a different voice really skillfully, keeping each character very separate.
The solution to the mystery of who stole the diamond and why is convoluted but also very simple. The whole story is well crafted and fits together really well.
The only negative points really are those imposed on Collins by the time he was writing this. There is an overlong introduction about the diamond in India (it seems that in Victorian novels the long winded introduction is somehow expected by the reader) and the pace slows somewhat in London as there is a lot of description about the character's social standings and financial affairs that just aren't as relevant today.
Nevertheless this really is as good a book as I remember. I certainly rate Collins a lot higher than Charles Dickens as a writer. Definitely recommended for anyone who likes a detective mystery which will keep the reader guessing until the very end.