Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated RoboCop (2014) in Movies
Mar 17, 2020
Reboot taints the original's good name
If you’re going to remake one of the 80s most iconic action films you’ve got to do it with some balls. Sadly José Padilha dropped this particular ball, pretty spectacularly in fact, to give us a sorry remake and leave fans of the original baying for blood (something which was missing in this).
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Glory (1989) in Movies
Apr 14, 2020
Well acted with tense battle scenes
Every now and then, I'll watch a specific scene in a movie and when it is complete, I say to myself - "that person just won the Oscar." Such was the case for a young "up and coming' actor in the 1989 Civil War film GLORY.
Directed by Richard Zwick (LEGENDS OF THE FALL) Glory tells the true story of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry of the Union Army in the Civil War - the first all black infantry - and stars Mathew Broderick (FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF), Cary Elwes (THE PRINCESS BRIDE), Morgan Freeman (on his way to becoming well known), Andre Braugher (in one of his first screen appearances) and Denzel Washington (who won an Oscar for his work).
Zwick does a wonderful job putting a unique spin on a standard story - ragtag group of soldiers band together, they go through bootcamp together and shift from a disparate group of individuals to a solid team - and then prove their worth in battle. This could have easily been a "paint by numbers" film but Zwick makes it something more, putting the emphasis on the soldiers and the obstacles they need to overcome and downplaying the danger and the violence. Don't get me wrong - the action sequences are intense and well made, they just aren't the point of the film.
The point of the film are the men who are involved - and the 5 leads are tremendous. Morgan Freeman shows the grace and leadership and authority that he would bring to many, many pictures. Elwes shows that he can command a screen, if given a chance and Denzel sparkles in his scenes. This picture shows a true movie star being born. But the real surprises for me on this viewing is the work of Matthew Broderick, playing a very different character than the light comedy performances we had seen from him in films like FERRIS BUELLER and on the stage that we would come to know him as in such musicals as THE PRODUCERS. This film shows that he has some wonderful acting chops and is just at home with a dramatic role as he is with a light comedic role.
But...the actor that really stood out from the others in this showing is the great Andre Braugher in his first Major Motion Picture appearance. He would go on to shine brightly in such roles as Detective Pembleton in HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREETS and currently is starring as Captain Holt in BROOKLYN 99, but in Glory he was an unknown commodity and his portrayal of free, educated black man Thomas Searles - a childhood friend of both the Broderick and Elwes characters - who must adjust to being one of "the men" with this collection of uneducated former slaves and live in a tiered relationship with 2 men that are his peers and friends is heartbreaking to watch. Even though I was thrilled with Washington's Oscar (he does have the "Oscar scene" in this film), I thought Braugher's performance was just as good - maybe even better.
All of this leads the audience to a finale that is intense - and intensely personal - for you are invested in these men as they face insurmountable odds and most certain death.
I've been re-watching quite a few movies lately, and GLORY is one that hit me harder - and is better - than I remembered. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Richard Zwick (LEGENDS OF THE FALL) Glory tells the true story of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry of the Union Army in the Civil War - the first all black infantry - and stars Mathew Broderick (FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF), Cary Elwes (THE PRINCESS BRIDE), Morgan Freeman (on his way to becoming well known), Andre Braugher (in one of his first screen appearances) and Denzel Washington (who won an Oscar for his work).
Zwick does a wonderful job putting a unique spin on a standard story - ragtag group of soldiers band together, they go through bootcamp together and shift from a disparate group of individuals to a solid team - and then prove their worth in battle. This could have easily been a "paint by numbers" film but Zwick makes it something more, putting the emphasis on the soldiers and the obstacles they need to overcome and downplaying the danger and the violence. Don't get me wrong - the action sequences are intense and well made, they just aren't the point of the film.
The point of the film are the men who are involved - and the 5 leads are tremendous. Morgan Freeman shows the grace and leadership and authority that he would bring to many, many pictures. Elwes shows that he can command a screen, if given a chance and Denzel sparkles in his scenes. This picture shows a true movie star being born. But the real surprises for me on this viewing is the work of Matthew Broderick, playing a very different character than the light comedy performances we had seen from him in films like FERRIS BUELLER and on the stage that we would come to know him as in such musicals as THE PRODUCERS. This film shows that he has some wonderful acting chops and is just at home with a dramatic role as he is with a light comedic role.
But...the actor that really stood out from the others in this showing is the great Andre Braugher in his first Major Motion Picture appearance. He would go on to shine brightly in such roles as Detective Pembleton in HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREETS and currently is starring as Captain Holt in BROOKLYN 99, but in Glory he was an unknown commodity and his portrayal of free, educated black man Thomas Searles - a childhood friend of both the Broderick and Elwes characters - who must adjust to being one of "the men" with this collection of uneducated former slaves and live in a tiered relationship with 2 men that are his peers and friends is heartbreaking to watch. Even though I was thrilled with Washington's Oscar (he does have the "Oscar scene" in this film), I thought Braugher's performance was just as good - maybe even better.
All of this leads the audience to a finale that is intense - and intensely personal - for you are invested in these men as they face insurmountable odds and most certain death.
I've been re-watching quite a few movies lately, and GLORY is one that hit me harder - and is better - than I remembered. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kill the Father
8.5
Rate It
Book
'The rock cast a sharp, dark shadow over a shape huddled on the ground. Please don't let it be the...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Minority Report (2002) in Movies
Jul 19, 2020
I Knew I Would Love it Before I Watched it...See What I Did There?
In the future, “precogs” help predict a murder before it happens. When they predict that John Anderton, head of the precrime divison, will be the next killer, Anderton has to go on the run to prove his innocence.
Acting: 10
We give Tom Cruise shit for being crazy in real life. Say what you want about him on a personal level, the energy that he brings to the big screen is excellent. The way he taps into the emotions of a father that just lost his son hits you with a strong emotional tie to the movie.
Outside of a strong performance from Cruise as John Anderton, it’s also the lesser roles that drive this movie into classic status. Actors/actresses like Lois Smith as the matter-of-fact Dr. Hinneman and Colin Farrell sticking his nose into every single scene as Detective Danny Witwer bring fresh life to this movie throughout its duration. The female performances were particularly strong. This movie just doesn’t function the same without wonderful actresses Samantha Morton and Kathryn Morris helping to drive the story.
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes really set the stage for the insanity to come. We see the precrime unit led by Anderton moving on their next target: A man who catches his wife in bed cheating, or at least he will. The act has yet to happen, but the unit is there to stop it before it does.
Characters: 10
Anderton is a troubled cop stuck between a terrible past and a troubling future. You can relate to his pain and why he has ended up the way he has. Like Anderton, each character has enough depth and backstory to make you care about them one way or the other. I was particularly drawn to Agatha, head of the precogs, and her story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
There is a scene in this movie I consider one of the greatest in any film ever done. Anderton has captured the precog Agatha to try and get into her brain to unearth his innocence. With the police in hot pursuit, he has to escape through a mall using Agatha as a cognitive guide to help him escape danger. It is truly a brilliant layout of a scene and it really enhances this movie. This is a movie packed with a number of those same type of scenes that leave an impact in your brain.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
A brilliant story from cover to cover. Steven Spielberg pulls out the heart and glitz of this movie with true wonder that only he can achieve. There is a reason I consider him the GOAT, because his stories wow you while making you think and feel at the same time. This story couldn’t have been put together more perfectly.
Resolution: 10
The ending couldn’t have been more perfect. It’s all about redemption and starting over. I won’t spoil it by going into further detail.
Overall: 100
Every now and then a movie comes along that manages to sit with me for a long time. It’s the primary reason I consider Minority Report to be the greatest sci-fi movie ever made and #3 on my all-time list. Quite frankly, it’s just plain dope.
Acting: 10
We give Tom Cruise shit for being crazy in real life. Say what you want about him on a personal level, the energy that he brings to the big screen is excellent. The way he taps into the emotions of a father that just lost his son hits you with a strong emotional tie to the movie.
Outside of a strong performance from Cruise as John Anderton, it’s also the lesser roles that drive this movie into classic status. Actors/actresses like Lois Smith as the matter-of-fact Dr. Hinneman and Colin Farrell sticking his nose into every single scene as Detective Danny Witwer bring fresh life to this movie throughout its duration. The female performances were particularly strong. This movie just doesn’t function the same without wonderful actresses Samantha Morton and Kathryn Morris helping to drive the story.
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes really set the stage for the insanity to come. We see the precrime unit led by Anderton moving on their next target: A man who catches his wife in bed cheating, or at least he will. The act has yet to happen, but the unit is there to stop it before it does.
Characters: 10
Anderton is a troubled cop stuck between a terrible past and a troubling future. You can relate to his pain and why he has ended up the way he has. Like Anderton, each character has enough depth and backstory to make you care about them one way or the other. I was particularly drawn to Agatha, head of the precogs, and her story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
There is a scene in this movie I consider one of the greatest in any film ever done. Anderton has captured the precog Agatha to try and get into her brain to unearth his innocence. With the police in hot pursuit, he has to escape through a mall using Agatha as a cognitive guide to help him escape danger. It is truly a brilliant layout of a scene and it really enhances this movie. This is a movie packed with a number of those same type of scenes that leave an impact in your brain.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
A brilliant story from cover to cover. Steven Spielberg pulls out the heart and glitz of this movie with true wonder that only he can achieve. There is a reason I consider him the GOAT, because his stories wow you while making you think and feel at the same time. This story couldn’t have been put together more perfectly.
Resolution: 10
The ending couldn’t have been more perfect. It’s all about redemption and starting over. I won’t spoil it by going into further detail.
Overall: 100
Every now and then a movie comes along that manages to sit with me for a long time. It’s the primary reason I consider Minority Report to be the greatest sci-fi movie ever made and #3 on my all-time list. Quite frankly, it’s just plain dope.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Poison Orchids in Books
May 4, 2020
As soon as I read the synopsis for Poison Orchids by Sarah A. Denzil and Anni Taylor, I was hooked. This sounded like something I could really sink my teeth right into. I'm a big fan of psychological thrillers, and this one did not disappoint.
Gemma and Hayley end up working on a mango farm for the very rich and very handsome Tate LLewellyn. Everything seems perfect for them...a place to live, a steady income, fun times, and a sense of belonging. However, when Gemma and Hayley end up running out in the middle of the road away from an attacker, their memories start getting foggy. Each girl tells the detectives a different story yet both don't add up. With time running out for Gemma and Hayley, the police must figure out what the real truth is if they want to save the girls.
I found the plot for Poison Orchids to be very interesting. The whole memory thing has been done before, but I felt like Denzil and Taylor gave it an original spin that kept me glued to the book. Yes, there are some parts of the plot that are a little over the top and a bit unbelievable, but even so, the plot holds its own. Despite some of the outrageous scenes, this book held my unwavering attention with its perfect pacing. I found myself wanting to know what would happen next. I found that I couldn't trust anyone (with the exception of the police) in Poison Orchids. It was as if the thrills were never ending throughout this book! While you know almost from the beginning who the baddie is, there are plenty of plot twists throughout that will leave you thinking about them long after you finish the book. However, there are no cliff hangers, and it seemed that all loose ends were tied up by the end of the book.
The characters were well fleshed out and solid. I loved both Gemma and Hayley. Sometimes I would love one more than the other, but in the end, I realized I loved them both equally. I could somewhat relate to both of them.Tate and Rodney were both written very well although I would have liked a bit more backstory on Rodney. Megan, the psychologist, was an interesting character. I enjoyed getting to know her a bit better later on in the book. What I really admired was how much she cared about Gemma and Hayley. Bronwen, the detective on the case, was a no-nonsense type of woman, and I admired that about her. She wanted answers, and she was determined to get them. Even the secondary characters all felt very realistic. I could actually picture each and every character quite easily as I was reading Poison Orchids.
Trigger warnings for Poison Orchids include profanity, alcohol use, drug use, violence, death, murder, attempted suicide, rape, assault, brainwashing, gaslighting, and cults.
All in all, Poison Orchids makes for a thrilling read that will leave you thinking about it long after you've finished reading. It's got fantastic characters and an interesting plot for sure. I would definitely recommend Poison Orchids by Sarah A. Denzil and Anni Taylor to those aged 17+ who are after a great read!
Gemma and Hayley end up working on a mango farm for the very rich and very handsome Tate LLewellyn. Everything seems perfect for them...a place to live, a steady income, fun times, and a sense of belonging. However, when Gemma and Hayley end up running out in the middle of the road away from an attacker, their memories start getting foggy. Each girl tells the detectives a different story yet both don't add up. With time running out for Gemma and Hayley, the police must figure out what the real truth is if they want to save the girls.
I found the plot for Poison Orchids to be very interesting. The whole memory thing has been done before, but I felt like Denzil and Taylor gave it an original spin that kept me glued to the book. Yes, there are some parts of the plot that are a little over the top and a bit unbelievable, but even so, the plot holds its own. Despite some of the outrageous scenes, this book held my unwavering attention with its perfect pacing. I found myself wanting to know what would happen next. I found that I couldn't trust anyone (with the exception of the police) in Poison Orchids. It was as if the thrills were never ending throughout this book! While you know almost from the beginning who the baddie is, there are plenty of plot twists throughout that will leave you thinking about them long after you finish the book. However, there are no cliff hangers, and it seemed that all loose ends were tied up by the end of the book.
The characters were well fleshed out and solid. I loved both Gemma and Hayley. Sometimes I would love one more than the other, but in the end, I realized I loved them both equally. I could somewhat relate to both of them.Tate and Rodney were both written very well although I would have liked a bit more backstory on Rodney. Megan, the psychologist, was an interesting character. I enjoyed getting to know her a bit better later on in the book. What I really admired was how much she cared about Gemma and Hayley. Bronwen, the detective on the case, was a no-nonsense type of woman, and I admired that about her. She wanted answers, and she was determined to get them. Even the secondary characters all felt very realistic. I could actually picture each and every character quite easily as I was reading Poison Orchids.
Trigger warnings for Poison Orchids include profanity, alcohol use, drug use, violence, death, murder, attempted suicide, rape, assault, brainwashing, gaslighting, and cults.
All in all, Poison Orchids makes for a thrilling read that will leave you thinking about it long after you've finished reading. It's got fantastic characters and an interesting plot for sure. I would definitely recommend Poison Orchids by Sarah A. Denzil and Anni Taylor to those aged 17+ who are after a great read!
Lionhearts: Part Two Box Set
8.0
Rate It
Book
Into the Arena He will fight for the one he loves, no matter what it takes. Cesare Bianco is a...
Adult Paranormal Romance M_M
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Enola Holmes 2 (2022) in Movies
Nov 14, 2022
Pleasant and Entertaining
Back in September 2020 - in the heart of the pandemic shutdown - Netflix released ENOLA HOLMES which was dubbed “the teen version of Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes” - one can decide for themselves if that is a good or a bad thing. For me, this flick was an agreeable way to spend a few hours and I, for one, was looking forward to further adventures of Enola and her more well-known older brother, Sherlock.
And, in ENOLA HOLMES 2, we get exactly that. A very entertaining way to spend a few hours with characters that continue to be a joy to while away the time - and a mystery - with.
Starring Millie Bobby Brown (11 in STRANGER THINGS), Enola Holmes 2 follows the titular character as she has opened her own, competing, Detective Agency. But, as these sorts of things go, her case ends up intertwining with her famous older sibling’s case, so we really get “Holmes and Holmes”.
And that is just fine with me for Brown and Henry Cavill (who plays Sherlock Holmes and who has previously played the MAN OF STEEL) make a winning pair, working off each other with just the right tone of mystery and fun and they look like they are having a good time figuring out the central mystery of this story.
Credit for this must go to Director Harry Bradbeer (Director of the first ENOLA HOLMES film) who came up with this story based on Nancy Springer’s characters (she wrote the ENOLA HOLMES books) and to which Jack Thorne bases his screenplay on. Bradbeer seems to understand these characters and the tone of this film. He makes just the right balance between mystery and fun - keeping the proceedings moving along at a jaunty pace, so the audience can enjoy the ride, but aren’t too jostled around by it.
Brown and Cavill fit right into this tone as does the always wonderful Helena Bonham Carter (she of many films, let’s go with A ROOM WITH A VIEW) as the mother of both of these two Detectives. The sturdy David Thewlis (Professor Lupine in the HARRY POTTER films) brings along his professionalism, comedic timing and mysteriousness as Police Inspector Grail while Louis Partridge returns as the handsome almost-love interest of Enola, Lord Tewkesbury.
Special notice needs to be made of Costumer Consolata Boyle (THE QUEEN) she populates this film with the prerequisite muted colors of 19th Century London (lots of Grey, Black and Dark Blue) but she manages to give Enola just enough of a flair in her costumes. For example, the blue of her skirt is just brighter enough than those around her to punch her up, but it is not so much brighter that it is obviously making her stick out. It is a smart, subtle touch to a very pleasing film to look at.
And that is, really, the bottom line of this movie. It is a very pleasant movie, with a mystery that is interesting enough to keep a person hooked, but not overly complex or dingy as to turn people off.
A good family film - and that is a compliment - the type of film that can be enjoyed by young and old alike.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars
And you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, in ENOLA HOLMES 2, we get exactly that. A very entertaining way to spend a few hours with characters that continue to be a joy to while away the time - and a mystery - with.
Starring Millie Bobby Brown (11 in STRANGER THINGS), Enola Holmes 2 follows the titular character as she has opened her own, competing, Detective Agency. But, as these sorts of things go, her case ends up intertwining with her famous older sibling’s case, so we really get “Holmes and Holmes”.
And that is just fine with me for Brown and Henry Cavill (who plays Sherlock Holmes and who has previously played the MAN OF STEEL) make a winning pair, working off each other with just the right tone of mystery and fun and they look like they are having a good time figuring out the central mystery of this story.
Credit for this must go to Director Harry Bradbeer (Director of the first ENOLA HOLMES film) who came up with this story based on Nancy Springer’s characters (she wrote the ENOLA HOLMES books) and to which Jack Thorne bases his screenplay on. Bradbeer seems to understand these characters and the tone of this film. He makes just the right balance between mystery and fun - keeping the proceedings moving along at a jaunty pace, so the audience can enjoy the ride, but aren’t too jostled around by it.
Brown and Cavill fit right into this tone as does the always wonderful Helena Bonham Carter (she of many films, let’s go with A ROOM WITH A VIEW) as the mother of both of these two Detectives. The sturdy David Thewlis (Professor Lupine in the HARRY POTTER films) brings along his professionalism, comedic timing and mysteriousness as Police Inspector Grail while Louis Partridge returns as the handsome almost-love interest of Enola, Lord Tewkesbury.
Special notice needs to be made of Costumer Consolata Boyle (THE QUEEN) she populates this film with the prerequisite muted colors of 19th Century London (lots of Grey, Black and Dark Blue) but she manages to give Enola just enough of a flair in her costumes. For example, the blue of her skirt is just brighter enough than those around her to punch her up, but it is not so much brighter that it is obviously making her stick out. It is a smart, subtle touch to a very pleasing film to look at.
And that is, really, the bottom line of this movie. It is a very pleasant movie, with a mystery that is interesting enough to keep a person hooked, but not overly complex or dingy as to turn people off.
A good family film - and that is a compliment - the type of film that can be enjoyed by young and old alike.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars
And you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Children on the Hill in Books
Jul 28, 2022
I read Jennifer McMahon's book The Invited and liked it, so when I read the synopsis for her new book, The Children on the Hill, I was well intrigued. I decided to give it a read and ended up liking it.
The plot of The Children on the Hill definitely piqued my interest. The book switches between two different years. I was drawn into each time frame. I felt like I was right beside each narrator as their story was being told. Most of the story takes place in Vermont, and I felt that through McMahon's writing, I was transported to each location in Vermont. I was interested in Vi's and Eric's monsters. I also was rooting for Vi to solve Lily's mystery of where she came from. I wanted to know what Gran's secret was for being super successful. I had to know more. This book left no cliff hangars, and I was glad that all my questions were answered. I would have liked to know more about certain characters such as where they came from, but I understand why the author didn't include it in the book. There are a couple of big plot twists in The Children on the Hill. I guessed one right before it was mentioned, but I really didn't see the other one coming. (Kudos to Jennifer McMahon on that!) As for the pacing, there were times that it slowed down to the point where I would get a little bored and take a break. However, the pacing would quickly pick back up. In the last quarter or so of the book, the pacing is done brilliantly, and I didn't want to put the book down at all!
I enjoyed the characters from The Children on the Hill. McMahon did a fabulous job with making each and every character feel realistic instead of make believe. Violet was such a vibrant child, and I enjoyed reading about her quest for knowledge no matter the cost. She was definitely quite the detective! Lily was an enigma that I couldn't figure out at first, but I really liked reading about her. It was interesting to watch her grow each day around Vi and Eric. Lizzy was also a likeable character, and I admired how determined she was to find her sister and solve the mysteries of the missing girls. Gran/Dr. Hildreth came across as a sweet old woman, but I always suspected she was up to something. I had my reservations about her, so I enjoyed reading to find out if my suspicions were correct. McMahon did an excellent job presenting Gran/Dr. Hildreth as a sweet grandmotherly type to Eric and Vi.
Trigger warnings for The Children on the Hill include some profanity, murder, violence, torture, kidnapping, and gaslighting.
All in all, The Children on the Hill is a book with a solid plot featuring a small cast of characters that are interesting to read about and how far they'll go for their cause. The plot will leave you guessing as you try to make it all make sense (though everything will be explained by the end of the book). I would absolutely recommend The Children on the Hill by Jennifer McMahon to those aged 17+ who love trying to figure out a thrilling mystery. This is one book you'll definitely want to pick up!
The plot of The Children on the Hill definitely piqued my interest. The book switches between two different years. I was drawn into each time frame. I felt like I was right beside each narrator as their story was being told. Most of the story takes place in Vermont, and I felt that through McMahon's writing, I was transported to each location in Vermont. I was interested in Vi's and Eric's monsters. I also was rooting for Vi to solve Lily's mystery of where she came from. I wanted to know what Gran's secret was for being super successful. I had to know more. This book left no cliff hangars, and I was glad that all my questions were answered. I would have liked to know more about certain characters such as where they came from, but I understand why the author didn't include it in the book. There are a couple of big plot twists in The Children on the Hill. I guessed one right before it was mentioned, but I really didn't see the other one coming. (Kudos to Jennifer McMahon on that!) As for the pacing, there were times that it slowed down to the point where I would get a little bored and take a break. However, the pacing would quickly pick back up. In the last quarter or so of the book, the pacing is done brilliantly, and I didn't want to put the book down at all!
I enjoyed the characters from The Children on the Hill. McMahon did a fabulous job with making each and every character feel realistic instead of make believe. Violet was such a vibrant child, and I enjoyed reading about her quest for knowledge no matter the cost. She was definitely quite the detective! Lily was an enigma that I couldn't figure out at first, but I really liked reading about her. It was interesting to watch her grow each day around Vi and Eric. Lizzy was also a likeable character, and I admired how determined she was to find her sister and solve the mysteries of the missing girls. Gran/Dr. Hildreth came across as a sweet old woman, but I always suspected she was up to something. I had my reservations about her, so I enjoyed reading to find out if my suspicions were correct. McMahon did an excellent job presenting Gran/Dr. Hildreth as a sweet grandmotherly type to Eric and Vi.
Trigger warnings for The Children on the Hill include some profanity, murder, violence, torture, kidnapping, and gaslighting.
All in all, The Children on the Hill is a book with a solid plot featuring a small cast of characters that are interesting to read about and how far they'll go for their cause. The plot will leave you guessing as you try to make it all make sense (though everything will be explained by the end of the book). I would absolutely recommend The Children on the Hill by Jennifer McMahon to those aged 17+ who love trying to figure out a thrilling mystery. This is one book you'll definitely want to pick up!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Gotham is the kind of show where I wonder whether they tried to save money by just having the interns write the script. It's got that stilted, on-the-nose kind of dialogue that makes me just feel bad for the actors. For a while I thought the quality of the writing varied from scene to scene, but it was really just that a certain few actors (those that play Fish Mooney, Ed Nygma, and Harvey Bullock spring to mind) that were able to transcend the material they were working with, while others struggled and some just seemed to give up.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.