Search
The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present
Book
An informed, moving and kaleidoscopic portrait... Treuer's powerful book suggests the need for...
The Story of Us by Quinn XCII
Album
The Story Of Us is the debut album from Detroit-bred vocalist/songwriter Quinn XCII. The album if...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nope (2022) in Movies
Jul 26, 2022
Original...Tense...and Entertaining
Producer/Writer/Director Jordan Peele has managed to accomplish something with his latest horror film - he has managed to make a completely original film both in concept and in execution.
To tell too much about the story of NOPE would be to spoil it - and letting this unique film unfold in front of you is a large part of the journey - but, to sum up…Hollywood Horse Wrangler, Otis Haywood Sr. (the great Keith David, THE THING), his son, Otis Haywood, Jr. - or as he is called in this film OJ (the incomparable Oscar-winner Daniel Kaluuya) and his daughter, Emerald (Keke Palmer of Disney Channel fame, amongst others) encounter some strange phenomena. Their investigation will draw in their neighbor, former child star Ricky “Jupe” Park (Steven Yeun, THE WALKING DEAD), a tech from the local IT Hardware store, Angel Torres (Brandon Perea, THE OA) and a wildlife cinematographer, Antlers Holst, who specializes in getting the “impossible” shot (Michael Wincott, THE CROW).
It’s a wildly entertaining, grip-your-armchair type of film that unfolds on the screen in clever ways (without getting “too” weird) - all with the pragmatic sensibilities of Peele, the former member of the comedy duo KEYE & PEELE. Jordan has grown into a filmmaker that must not be missed and in NOPE he showcases his skill with strong effect, being in complete control of the artistic point of view while delivering a highly entertaining thriller.
Of course, it helps that you have a performer as interesting to watch as Kaluuya - one of the finest performers in film today. He plays the taciturn OJ with complete “taciturn-ness” (if that is a word) and, in his skilled body, this performance works very, very well. He says more with a glance or a shrug than most people can say with a 1,000 words and he draws you into the screen and into his thoughts with tremendous intimacy.
Keke Palmer, by contrast, is the exact opposite. Her Emerald is flamboyant, chatty, up-beat and beset by inner demons made manifest by drugs, alcohol and smoke. It is a movie-saving performance by Palmer as she brings the heart and the energy to the proceedings while Kaluuya is the quiet brains and the soul.
Perea, Yeun, David and (especially) Wincott all add to the tapestry of the events and bring something interesting and worth looking at (and into) during the course of this film.
Peele ratchets the tension throughout this film like an expert and the Special Effects are used in exactly the right way that they needed to be used and showcased throughout the film - filling you with awe when that is called for and having you think to yourself “you’ve got to be kidding me” when that is exactly what the characters are thinking.
A masterful, original concept of a film by Peele - one that is not for everyone - but those that are into this type of thing are going to be in for a unique and original film filled with unique characters and more than one jump along the way.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
To tell too much about the story of NOPE would be to spoil it - and letting this unique film unfold in front of you is a large part of the journey - but, to sum up…Hollywood Horse Wrangler, Otis Haywood Sr. (the great Keith David, THE THING), his son, Otis Haywood, Jr. - or as he is called in this film OJ (the incomparable Oscar-winner Daniel Kaluuya) and his daughter, Emerald (Keke Palmer of Disney Channel fame, amongst others) encounter some strange phenomena. Their investigation will draw in their neighbor, former child star Ricky “Jupe” Park (Steven Yeun, THE WALKING DEAD), a tech from the local IT Hardware store, Angel Torres (Brandon Perea, THE OA) and a wildlife cinematographer, Antlers Holst, who specializes in getting the “impossible” shot (Michael Wincott, THE CROW).
It’s a wildly entertaining, grip-your-armchair type of film that unfolds on the screen in clever ways (without getting “too” weird) - all with the pragmatic sensibilities of Peele, the former member of the comedy duo KEYE & PEELE. Jordan has grown into a filmmaker that must not be missed and in NOPE he showcases his skill with strong effect, being in complete control of the artistic point of view while delivering a highly entertaining thriller.
Of course, it helps that you have a performer as interesting to watch as Kaluuya - one of the finest performers in film today. He plays the taciturn OJ with complete “taciturn-ness” (if that is a word) and, in his skilled body, this performance works very, very well. He says more with a glance or a shrug than most people can say with a 1,000 words and he draws you into the screen and into his thoughts with tremendous intimacy.
Keke Palmer, by contrast, is the exact opposite. Her Emerald is flamboyant, chatty, up-beat and beset by inner demons made manifest by drugs, alcohol and smoke. It is a movie-saving performance by Palmer as she brings the heart and the energy to the proceedings while Kaluuya is the quiet brains and the soul.
Perea, Yeun, David and (especially) Wincott all add to the tapestry of the events and bring something interesting and worth looking at (and into) during the course of this film.
Peele ratchets the tension throughout this film like an expert and the Special Effects are used in exactly the right way that they needed to be used and showcased throughout the film - filling you with awe when that is called for and having you think to yourself “you’ve got to be kidding me” when that is exactly what the characters are thinking.
A masterful, original concept of a film by Peele - one that is not for everyone - but those that are into this type of thing are going to be in for a unique and original film filled with unique characters and more than one jump along the way.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Daughter of the Sea and the Sky in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review</i>
<i>The Daughter of the Sea and the Sky</i> by David Litwack is set in a world similar to our own, however there have been many wars as a result of religion and the people have separated themselves into believers and non-believers. Helena Brewster and Jason Adams live on the republic where the people rely heavy on reason and reject the supposedly irrational ramblings of the zealots who live on the “Blessed Lands”. One day a nine-year-old girl, Kailani, escapes from the Blessed Land and sails over to the republic where Helena and Jason find her. Kailani is immediately captured and questioned by the authorities that want to send her to a correctional facility to undo the brainwashing of the zealots.
In the meantime, as it is several months until her tribunal, Helena and Jason become Kailani’s legal guardians and take her to live at Glen Eagle Farm away from the main population of the busy towns. Kailani is loved and admired by the inhabitants on the farm, however there are people on the Blessed Land that want her back.
This is certainly an interesting story that explores a range of themes. For Helena there is the grief she is suffering as a result of the recent death of her father, and the feelings she has towards her mother whom she felt abandoned by. Between Jason and Helena there is also a developing romance as the two connect in their determination to protect Kailani. The most important theme, however, is that of the antagonism between the believers and non-believers. Those living on the Blessed Land want to indoctrinate everybody with their ideals about the soul whereas on the republic this is forbidden as they insist on living a life ruled through fact. As the story goes on certain characters begin to understand the need for both realism and religion. One person even suggests, “In our pursuit of reason, we’ve become as unreasonable as the other side.”
Kailani is a lovable character, which makes the novel a joy to read. It is interesting to compare how a child brought up under a strict religion innocently views the world in comparison with adults who have no faith what so ever. Although written for adults it is suitable for young teens to read too who, although may not understand the significance of the two different sides, are sure to love and enjoy reading about Kailani.
<i>The Daughter of the Sea and the Sky</i> by David Litwack is set in a world similar to our own, however there have been many wars as a result of religion and the people have separated themselves into believers and non-believers. Helena Brewster and Jason Adams live on the republic where the people rely heavy on reason and reject the supposedly irrational ramblings of the zealots who live on the “Blessed Lands”. One day a nine-year-old girl, Kailani, escapes from the Blessed Land and sails over to the republic where Helena and Jason find her. Kailani is immediately captured and questioned by the authorities that want to send her to a correctional facility to undo the brainwashing of the zealots.
In the meantime, as it is several months until her tribunal, Helena and Jason become Kailani’s legal guardians and take her to live at Glen Eagle Farm away from the main population of the busy towns. Kailani is loved and admired by the inhabitants on the farm, however there are people on the Blessed Land that want her back.
This is certainly an interesting story that explores a range of themes. For Helena there is the grief she is suffering as a result of the recent death of her father, and the feelings she has towards her mother whom she felt abandoned by. Between Jason and Helena there is also a developing romance as the two connect in their determination to protect Kailani. The most important theme, however, is that of the antagonism between the believers and non-believers. Those living on the Blessed Land want to indoctrinate everybody with their ideals about the soul whereas on the republic this is forbidden as they insist on living a life ruled through fact. As the story goes on certain characters begin to understand the need for both realism and religion. One person even suggests, “In our pursuit of reason, we’ve become as unreasonable as the other side.”
Kailani is a lovable character, which makes the novel a joy to read. It is interesting to compare how a child brought up under a strict religion innocently views the world in comparison with adults who have no faith what so ever. Although written for adults it is suitable for young teens to read too who, although may not understand the significance of the two different sides, are sure to love and enjoy reading about Kailani.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
My anticipation for the second part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, much like my anticipation of Part 1, was accompanied by great reluctance to witness the culmination of 10 years of storytelling.
Opening exactly where Part 1 left off, we find Harry, Hermione and Ron continuing on their quest to locate the remaining Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has implanted a part of his soul. Destruction of these Horcruxes help weaken Voldemort. Polyjuice, goblins and a dragon ride provide some humor and thrills and eventually leads to the trios’ return to Hogwarts, where Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape is now the hated headmaster. Voldemort has attained the powerful Elder Wand and has turned his evil sights on the school in hopes of drawing Harry out. Along with his questionably loyal Deatheaters, they surround Hogwarts and prepare to attack.
At times the storytelling is a bit slow, at times too abrupt. While the special Harry Potter 3D glasses were amusing, I didn’t notice any spectacular effects that would warrant the extra charge to watch this movie in 3D. As is the case for converted 3D movies, the effects are more of a distracting afterthought than a real enhancement. For those not familiar with the books, the storylines may be a bit convoluted but your patience will be rewarded. Daniel Radcliffe’s matured Harry Potter is grim and resolute, his best friends Hermione and Ron (Emma Watson and Rupert Grinch) are aptly desperate but determined. Taking a stand with them, wile making their cinematic curtain call, are many of their Hogwarts professors, their classmates in Dumbldore’s Army and their mentors in the Order of the Phoenix. There are more heartwrenching moments than heartwarming parts as Harry learns more about the events surrounding his existence and what he must do to defeat Voldemort.
Few books, and far fewer movie adaptations, have captured the hearts of such a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. The valiant attempts by directors Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell and, lastly, David Yates, to recreate the vast, enchanting wizarding world imagined by J.K. Rowling, have deservedly garnered the franchise a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. Yet, as lush and vivid as the movies have been, they only touched on some of the best parts of the books. Needless to say, I wasn’t expecting perfection. But what I saw in Part 2 was pretty darn close. While movie adaptations of beloved stories will always leave serious fans wanting more, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a fitting finale to this epic tale.
Opening exactly where Part 1 left off, we find Harry, Hermione and Ron continuing on their quest to locate the remaining Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has implanted a part of his soul. Destruction of these Horcruxes help weaken Voldemort. Polyjuice, goblins and a dragon ride provide some humor and thrills and eventually leads to the trios’ return to Hogwarts, where Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape is now the hated headmaster. Voldemort has attained the powerful Elder Wand and has turned his evil sights on the school in hopes of drawing Harry out. Along with his questionably loyal Deatheaters, they surround Hogwarts and prepare to attack.
At times the storytelling is a bit slow, at times too abrupt. While the special Harry Potter 3D glasses were amusing, I didn’t notice any spectacular effects that would warrant the extra charge to watch this movie in 3D. As is the case for converted 3D movies, the effects are more of a distracting afterthought than a real enhancement. For those not familiar with the books, the storylines may be a bit convoluted but your patience will be rewarded. Daniel Radcliffe’s matured Harry Potter is grim and resolute, his best friends Hermione and Ron (Emma Watson and Rupert Grinch) are aptly desperate but determined. Taking a stand with them, wile making their cinematic curtain call, are many of their Hogwarts professors, their classmates in Dumbldore’s Army and their mentors in the Order of the Phoenix. There are more heartwrenching moments than heartwarming parts as Harry learns more about the events surrounding his existence and what he must do to defeat Voldemort.
Few books, and far fewer movie adaptations, have captured the hearts of such a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. The valiant attempts by directors Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell and, lastly, David Yates, to recreate the vast, enchanting wizarding world imagined by J.K. Rowling, have deservedly garnered the franchise a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. Yet, as lush and vivid as the movies have been, they only touched on some of the best parts of the books. Needless to say, I wasn’t expecting perfection. But what I saw in Part 2 was pretty darn close. While movie adaptations of beloved stories will always leave serious fans wanting more, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a fitting finale to this epic tale.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Lies She Told in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Liza is a struggling writer given an ultimatum by her editor: write a thriller for me in a month. It's been ages since Liza was on the bestseller list (truly, only her first novel was a real success). Meanwhile, she's a mess of fertility drugs and hormones, as she and her lawyer husband, David, are trying to start a family--and getting nowhere. Even worse, David's best friend and business partner, Nick, has been missing for over a month. David is increasingly frantic and distracted, and the police have no leads. So Liza pours her heart and soul into the story of Beth, a new mom who suspects her own lawyer husband of cheating on her. Beth catches him the act and makes a split-second decision that will change their lives forever. As Liza continues to write, the lines between fact and fiction become increasingly blurred.
I was excited to finally pick this one up, as so many of my friends had enjoyed it, but alas, I'm going to be the killjoy here <i>who stands against the popular wave of public opinion.</i> Please note that most people really loved this book and who knows, maybe I'm just getting cranky in my old age. ;) Or maybe I got too caught up in all the hype.
Either way, this one was a let down for me. <i> The clues left along in the story for the reader stand out as huge glaring red flags, basically just screaming the plot twists out</i>. Nothing came as a surprise, I had the entire thing worked out in about the first 15 minutes. Now, I won't lie, this is still an incredibly readable book - <i>it's a fast read</i> for sure. You immediately realize that Liza is an unreliable narrator and a ticking time bomb. I never really warmed to her, but she's somewhat fascinating in trying to figure out what she's up to and what's truly happening.
I've seen some complaints about it being hard to figure out what chapters were Liza's and which were Beth's--I didn't have that problem. They alternate and in my version, Liza's were marked. I occasionally had to remind myself who had which backstory, but I believe that was part of the idea--of Liza blurring the reality around her. And, truly, it was a great idea in concept.
Unfortunately, I found both women to be somewhat frustrating and didn't really buy all of their actions or relationships. Liza's quick attachment to Trevor, for instance, or some of Beth's bizarre decisions. That made it harder to root for them. And, again, absolutely nothing that occurred was a surprise. That was my biggest issue. I want my thriller to surprise me, but none of the twists were shocking whatsoever, right up to the end. Sigh.
Still, as I said, it's an oddly compelling read with the blurred parallels between Liza and Beth and you "wondering" what happened to Nick. At the end, I pondered for a moment whether it was brilliant or awful, but I just couldn't enjoy something I found so predictable, even if it was a page-turner at times. But, I'm certainly in the minority here, so take my review with a grain of salt!
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review. It's available everywhere as of 09/12/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
I was excited to finally pick this one up, as so many of my friends had enjoyed it, but alas, I'm going to be the killjoy here <i>who stands against the popular wave of public opinion.</i> Please note that most people really loved this book and who knows, maybe I'm just getting cranky in my old age. ;) Or maybe I got too caught up in all the hype.
Either way, this one was a let down for me. <i> The clues left along in the story for the reader stand out as huge glaring red flags, basically just screaming the plot twists out</i>. Nothing came as a surprise, I had the entire thing worked out in about the first 15 minutes. Now, I won't lie, this is still an incredibly readable book - <i>it's a fast read</i> for sure. You immediately realize that Liza is an unreliable narrator and a ticking time bomb. I never really warmed to her, but she's somewhat fascinating in trying to figure out what she's up to and what's truly happening.
I've seen some complaints about it being hard to figure out what chapters were Liza's and which were Beth's--I didn't have that problem. They alternate and in my version, Liza's were marked. I occasionally had to remind myself who had which backstory, but I believe that was part of the idea--of Liza blurring the reality around her. And, truly, it was a great idea in concept.
Unfortunately, I found both women to be somewhat frustrating and didn't really buy all of their actions or relationships. Liza's quick attachment to Trevor, for instance, or some of Beth's bizarre decisions. That made it harder to root for them. And, again, absolutely nothing that occurred was a surprise. That was my biggest issue. I want my thriller to surprise me, but none of the twists were shocking whatsoever, right up to the end. Sigh.
Still, as I said, it's an oddly compelling read with the blurred parallels between Liza and Beth and you "wondering" what happened to Nick. At the end, I pondered for a moment whether it was brilliant or awful, but I just couldn't enjoy something I found so predictable, even if it was a page-turner at times. But, I'm certainly in the minority here, so take my review with a grain of salt!
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review. It's available everywhere as of 09/12/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
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)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
With the slow, familiar strains of “Hedwig’s Theme”, the leitmotif that shepherds us into the world of Harry Potter, we’re once again immersed in the magic and adventure of the wizarding world. If for some reason you forgot where the story left off at the end of The Half-Blood Prince, the mournful dirge that plays as Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley prepare to meet reminds you that their world has changed drastically.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Stories of Prophets From Prophet Adam (P.B.U.H) to Last messenger Muhammad(P.B.U.H) & iQuran islam Stories
Book and Lifestyle
App
The Stories of the Prophets application described about the life of the most famous prophets form...