Search
Search results
Crazy Taxi Classic
Games and Entertainment
App
Hey hey, come on over and have some fun with Crazy Taxi, SEGA's ground-breaking, open-world driving...
Devices of the Soul
Book
Self-forgetfulness is the reigning temptation of the technological era. This is why we so readily...
Noonday
Book
In Noonday, Pat Barker - the Man Booker-winning author of the definitive WWI trilogy, Regeneration -...
Gerhard Fieseler: The Man Behind the Storch
Book
The Fieseler Storch is the most famous slow-speed aircraft of the Second World War. A remarkably...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2020
Cut what worked in the musical and left in what didn't
I had heard that the movie version of the mega-Broadway hit musical CATS was a "total trainwreck" with bizarre performances and CGI that was incomplete and/or incompetently done making these CATS look more like FREAKS, so I was looking forward to a "so bad it's good" experience at the film. But, instead of being horrified or bemused, I felt another emotion while watching this...
BOREDOM.
I've never been a real fan of the Broadway production - I witnessed the original cast back in the early 1980's and had a follow-up viewing of the show on Broadway in the mid-to-late '90's when 2 people I know were in the cast and both times I enjoyed the music (for the most part) and the dancing was SUPERB, but I was left disappointed by the characters and the plot (or lack thereof) of this show.
And...that's the biggest problem with the film version of CATS, Director Tom Hooper (LES MISERABLES) decided to focus this film ON the characters and the performances - headlined by such stalwarts as Dame Judy Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Idris, Elba, Ray Winstone, Jennifer Hudson, James Cordon and Rebel Wilson - and ignore the spectacle of the musical numbers and, most heinously, ignoring the dancing aspect of this musical. This approach, quite frankly, just did not work.
Now...add onto this questionable CGI (I'm being kind), a languid pace (I'm being kind) and performers who were miscast (I'm looking at you Idris Elba, Rebel Wilson, Ray Winstone and...if I'm being honest...Ian McKellan and Judy Dench), and don't get me started on Jason Derullo's RumTum Tugger and Taylor Swift's Bumbalurna (really?) - they were just plain awful. Derullo, especially, turned a fun, energizing driving character into a boring embodiment of all that is wrong with this film (okay...Rebel Wilson was worse, but still....) the only players in this film that kept my attention were stage performers like Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) and Francesca Hayward (Victoria) and they were sidelined for the most part by the bigger names and had their dance numbers eliminated and/or truncated.
I wish they would have gone for the campy "so bad, it's good" style of filmmaking - it, at least, would have kept my interest, but the movie as it is, did not. I was happy when the "Jellicle Cat" was selected at the end - I knew this experience would be over soon.
Letter Grade D
2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BOREDOM.
I've never been a real fan of the Broadway production - I witnessed the original cast back in the early 1980's and had a follow-up viewing of the show on Broadway in the mid-to-late '90's when 2 people I know were in the cast and both times I enjoyed the music (for the most part) and the dancing was SUPERB, but I was left disappointed by the characters and the plot (or lack thereof) of this show.
And...that's the biggest problem with the film version of CATS, Director Tom Hooper (LES MISERABLES) decided to focus this film ON the characters and the performances - headlined by such stalwarts as Dame Judy Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Idris, Elba, Ray Winstone, Jennifer Hudson, James Cordon and Rebel Wilson - and ignore the spectacle of the musical numbers and, most heinously, ignoring the dancing aspect of this musical. This approach, quite frankly, just did not work.
Now...add onto this questionable CGI (I'm being kind), a languid pace (I'm being kind) and performers who were miscast (I'm looking at you Idris Elba, Rebel Wilson, Ray Winstone and...if I'm being honest...Ian McKellan and Judy Dench), and don't get me started on Jason Derullo's RumTum Tugger and Taylor Swift's Bumbalurna (really?) - they were just plain awful. Derullo, especially, turned a fun, energizing driving character into a boring embodiment of all that is wrong with this film (okay...Rebel Wilson was worse, but still....) the only players in this film that kept my attention were stage performers like Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) and Francesca Hayward (Victoria) and they were sidelined for the most part by the bigger names and had their dance numbers eliminated and/or truncated.
I wish they would have gone for the campy "so bad, it's good" style of filmmaking - it, at least, would have kept my interest, but the movie as it is, did not. I was happy when the "Jellicle Cat" was selected at the end - I knew this experience would be over soon.
Letter Grade D
2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Mark Arm recommended Hendrix In The West by Jimi Hendrix in Music (curated)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The King of Staten Island (2020) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Incredible
An amateur tattoo artist is forced to grow up when his mom (who he is living with) falls in love with a new boo.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
The very first few moments sees main character Scott Carlin (Pete Davidson) driving on the highway with his eyes closed, seemingly trying to off himself. It’s a powerful scene followed quickly by Scott and his friends tripping out with the typical hilarious banter you find in a Judd Apatow movie. While both great scenes, you still don’t get a full sense of where the story is going after the first ten minutes hence the score.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Shot in a memorable style that brings out the best and worst of Staten Island at the same time. Director Apatow has a knack for capturing extremely impactful moments, especially the awkward ones. Every scene, no matter how short makes the most of its time and tells its own story. It’s such a hard thing to do yet Apatow finds a way to do it repeatedly.
Conflict: 10
It’s funny, I can’t look at Scott’s character without thinking about my 16-year-old son. He’s kind of drifting about in the same aimless way and, like Scott, doesn’t seem to understand how his now actions will affect his later. The beauty of having a character like this is the ability to be able to drive external conflict through Scott’s internal growth. He is struggling for selfish reasons. He wants his mom to be happy, but not at his expense. The dynamic of conflict is perfect.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
The story flows along pretty smoothly, although I wasn’t happy with the 147-minute runtime. That’s a bit extensive for a comedy in my opinion. Again, I was impressed about how time was maximized for the most part, but there were a few spots where I felt things could have been trimmed.
Plot: 7
The movie does cheat to meet its end, but I was ultimately ok with it because the rest of the story was pretty incredible. The cheat is a blip on an otherwise quality story that really enhances the growth of the characters. Every scene really does come together well to tell a great story.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 90
From jump, The King of Staten Island hits you in the mouth and keeps you entertained. I enjoyed this movie for multiple reasons, but mostly because it checks all the boxes. Even the things it falls short on is just slightly missing the mark. Highly recommended.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
The very first few moments sees main character Scott Carlin (Pete Davidson) driving on the highway with his eyes closed, seemingly trying to off himself. It’s a powerful scene followed quickly by Scott and his friends tripping out with the typical hilarious banter you find in a Judd Apatow movie. While both great scenes, you still don’t get a full sense of where the story is going after the first ten minutes hence the score.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Shot in a memorable style that brings out the best and worst of Staten Island at the same time. Director Apatow has a knack for capturing extremely impactful moments, especially the awkward ones. Every scene, no matter how short makes the most of its time and tells its own story. It’s such a hard thing to do yet Apatow finds a way to do it repeatedly.
Conflict: 10
It’s funny, I can’t look at Scott’s character without thinking about my 16-year-old son. He’s kind of drifting about in the same aimless way and, like Scott, doesn’t seem to understand how his now actions will affect his later. The beauty of having a character like this is the ability to be able to drive external conflict through Scott’s internal growth. He is struggling for selfish reasons. He wants his mom to be happy, but not at his expense. The dynamic of conflict is perfect.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
The story flows along pretty smoothly, although I wasn’t happy with the 147-minute runtime. That’s a bit extensive for a comedy in my opinion. Again, I was impressed about how time was maximized for the most part, but there were a few spots where I felt things could have been trimmed.
Plot: 7
The movie does cheat to meet its end, but I was ultimately ok with it because the rest of the story was pretty incredible. The cheat is a blip on an otherwise quality story that really enhances the growth of the characters. Every scene really does come together well to tell a great story.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 90
From jump, The King of Staten Island hits you in the mouth and keeps you entertained. I enjoyed this movie for multiple reasons, but mostly because it checks all the boxes. Even the things it falls short on is just slightly missing the mark. Highly recommended.
BookInspector (124 KP) rated The Last Thing To Burn in Books
Jan 26, 2021
The protagonist in this novel is Jane (it is not her name, but I will use it to avoid the spoilers), and the story is told from her perspective. Jane lives with her husband in a countryside farm. There is nothing around her but fields, and she is being held captive in that farm for years now. Jane has learned during those 7 years, that her husband always gets what he wants, she learned to adapt to the situation, but she hates every single day of her life. I found Jane very strong, selfless, caring and incredibly absorbing. She has so much to share with the reader, and it is truly heart-breaking to read her story.
The narrative of this book is very well written and entwined with present and past lives, that Jane had. During her daily routine, she shares how she ended up where she is. Her feelings and thoughts are painful to read. She keeps clinging to anything to survive, and it is devastating. This book really made me think, what I would do in Jane’s situation? How would I try to survive… I really wanted to know, how Jane will escape all this, that is what kept me constantly going. I wanted more action and less routine and mentioning of “his mother’s things” next to everything. (I got the point that nothing belonged to her 😉 ) There are some great twists and turns in this book, that enriched the plot immensely. The topics discussed in this book were human trafficking, rape, mental and physical abuse, the strength of motherly love, trauma, hope and many more.
The writing style of this book is absolutely brilliant. It is very hard to believe that this book is written by a male because Jane’s feelings and thoughts were very detailed and very accurate. Well done to Will Dean for this! The author managed to pack so much in a book that is 250 pages long. The chapters of this book are pretty short, and every chapter finishes with kind of a cliff-hanger, so my curiosity was always driving me forward. 🙂 The ending was very satisfying, and I am incredibly proud of Jane. 🙂
So, to conclude, this story is filled with incredibly damaged characters, mentally and physically. The plot carries a lot of pain and horrifying experiences, but it also channels love, hope, strength and determination. This book is full of triggers, but if anyone is looking for an amazing psychological thriller, I would strongly recommend this book. It is needed in society, maybe it would help to save a life one day…
The narrative of this book is very well written and entwined with present and past lives, that Jane had. During her daily routine, she shares how she ended up where she is. Her feelings and thoughts are painful to read. She keeps clinging to anything to survive, and it is devastating. This book really made me think, what I would do in Jane’s situation? How would I try to survive… I really wanted to know, how Jane will escape all this, that is what kept me constantly going. I wanted more action and less routine and mentioning of “his mother’s things” next to everything. (I got the point that nothing belonged to her 😉 ) There are some great twists and turns in this book, that enriched the plot immensely. The topics discussed in this book were human trafficking, rape, mental and physical abuse, the strength of motherly love, trauma, hope and many more.
The writing style of this book is absolutely brilliant. It is very hard to believe that this book is written by a male because Jane’s feelings and thoughts were very detailed and very accurate. Well done to Will Dean for this! The author managed to pack so much in a book that is 250 pages long. The chapters of this book are pretty short, and every chapter finishes with kind of a cliff-hanger, so my curiosity was always driving me forward. 🙂 The ending was very satisfying, and I am incredibly proud of Jane. 🙂
So, to conclude, this story is filled with incredibly damaged characters, mentally and physically. The plot carries a lot of pain and horrifying experiences, but it also channels love, hope, strength and determination. This book is full of triggers, but if anyone is looking for an amazing psychological thriller, I would strongly recommend this book. It is needed in society, maybe it would help to save a life one day…
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated 29 Seconds in Books
Sep 26, 2019
Sarah's life is ruled by her horrible boss. Yet he's untouchable due to a sizable grant and his famous TV show. Driving to get her children from school one day, Sarah rescues a young girl from harm. She does it out of the kindness of her heart, expecting nothing in return. But her act puts a very powerful man in her debt, and he decides that it must be repaid in his own way. He offers Sarah a 72-hour deal: he can make someone disappear with a simple phone call. No traces to her, no repercussions. Sarah's life with her boss is nearly intolerable, but can she really make that call?
"You give me one name. One person. and I will make them disappear. For you."
I went in to this one a little dubious about its premise, and yes, it's wild and crazy and implausible, but it's also one of those fun, addictive reads that you get caught up in and can't put down for hours. It was a whirlwind read, and I totally loved it. The book's story is very timely--Sarah's boss, Dr. Hawthorne is a terrible, despicable character: a poster child for the #metoo movement. Her success and livelihood are tied into sleeping with him. He sexually harasses her, threatens her, and basically does everything awful thing he could do. Your blood will boil when you read this story, and it was honestly stressful at times. Yet the man is untouchable thanks to protective male colleagues and the money he brings in.
"What happened is that it's a business and they've got too much invested in their prime asset to let him go. People like us are just the collateral damage."
Once Sarah is offered her "deal," it seems like the book will go a certain way, but there's nothing predictable about this novel. It's mesmerizing and completely addictive. There are a ton of twists and turns that keep you completely off guard. It's really easy to root for Sarah, as our bad guy stands in stark contrast to her, even if you question a few of her decisions. (And she's awfully lucky to have her father, who sure takes her kids on with no complaints.)
"She saw it now for what it was: a deal with the Devil."
If you're looking for a fun, unpredictable escape, this thriller is for you. It's really an awesome read, and I, for one, loved the ending. 4+ stars.
"You give me one name. One person. and I will make them disappear. For you."
I went in to this one a little dubious about its premise, and yes, it's wild and crazy and implausible, but it's also one of those fun, addictive reads that you get caught up in and can't put down for hours. It was a whirlwind read, and I totally loved it. The book's story is very timely--Sarah's boss, Dr. Hawthorne is a terrible, despicable character: a poster child for the #metoo movement. Her success and livelihood are tied into sleeping with him. He sexually harasses her, threatens her, and basically does everything awful thing he could do. Your blood will boil when you read this story, and it was honestly stressful at times. Yet the man is untouchable thanks to protective male colleagues and the money he brings in.
"What happened is that it's a business and they've got too much invested in their prime asset to let him go. People like us are just the collateral damage."
Once Sarah is offered her "deal," it seems like the book will go a certain way, but there's nothing predictable about this novel. It's mesmerizing and completely addictive. There are a ton of twists and turns that keep you completely off guard. It's really easy to root for Sarah, as our bad guy stands in stark contrast to her, even if you question a few of her decisions. (And she's awfully lucky to have her father, who sure takes her kids on with no complaints.)
"She saw it now for what it was: a deal with the Devil."
If you're looking for a fun, unpredictable escape, this thriller is for you. It's really an awesome read, and I, for one, loved the ending. 4+ stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Free Fire (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
At a rundown warehouse in 1970’s Boston, Justine (Brie Larson) and Ord (Armie Hammer) are brokering a deal between a South African arms dealer (Sharlto Copley) and members of the IRA (Cillian Murphy & Michael Smiley). Tensions flare almost immediately between the two sides and an inevitable battle of wills and gunplay ensues when two members of their entourage take decisive action on a fresh grudge from the night before.
It may say Scorsese’s producing, but Free Fire definitely smacks more of a Tarantino-influenced affair and I can think of no better example, in recent years anyway, that proves the lasting legacy of his still awe-inspiring debut, Reservoir Dogs. After years of making deliberately obtuse films (High Rise, A Field in England), Ben Wheatley has finally made something accessible, but unfortunately, Free Fire can’t pack the same visceral punch and narrative competence as the films that it takes influence from. I’m having flashbacks to about this time last year when I reviewed another film from A24, Green Room. I walked out of Free Fire in much the same manner; on a high, feeling satisfied from what appeared to be something unique and notable. As the hours have passed and I’m preparing my summation, the sentiment has all but vanished and I’m wanting of something with a little more substance. Granted, an 90 minute runtime can only accommodate so much, but I have to ask: could all that time spent crawling around in the dust and the rubble, as realistic a light that it may or may not shine on the authenticity of an actual shootout, have been used instead to get inside our characters motivations, driving us to really care about their fates? There’s no doubt that from its style and attitude, there was the potential for this to be the Reservoir Dogs for a new generation, but ultimately it’s just not a very memorable experience.
What will save Free Fire from obscurity is a cast that, despite having little plot to work with, is firing on all cylinders. An exemplary job is done from Oscar winners on down to character actors whose faces you know, but names you don’t. There isn’t one weak link in the chain and their performances have an excellent balance of toughness and levity that grounds them just enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. I might chastise Ben Wheatley as a storyteller, but there’s no doubt that he has an ear for great dialogue and fine judgement on the performers to deliver it.
It may say Scorsese’s producing, but Free Fire definitely smacks more of a Tarantino-influenced affair and I can think of no better example, in recent years anyway, that proves the lasting legacy of his still awe-inspiring debut, Reservoir Dogs. After years of making deliberately obtuse films (High Rise, A Field in England), Ben Wheatley has finally made something accessible, but unfortunately, Free Fire can’t pack the same visceral punch and narrative competence as the films that it takes influence from. I’m having flashbacks to about this time last year when I reviewed another film from A24, Green Room. I walked out of Free Fire in much the same manner; on a high, feeling satisfied from what appeared to be something unique and notable. As the hours have passed and I’m preparing my summation, the sentiment has all but vanished and I’m wanting of something with a little more substance. Granted, an 90 minute runtime can only accommodate so much, but I have to ask: could all that time spent crawling around in the dust and the rubble, as realistic a light that it may or may not shine on the authenticity of an actual shootout, have been used instead to get inside our characters motivations, driving us to really care about their fates? There’s no doubt that from its style and attitude, there was the potential for this to be the Reservoir Dogs for a new generation, but ultimately it’s just not a very memorable experience.
What will save Free Fire from obscurity is a cast that, despite having little plot to work with, is firing on all cylinders. An exemplary job is done from Oscar winners on down to character actors whose faces you know, but names you don’t. There isn’t one weak link in the chain and their performances have an excellent balance of toughness and levity that grounds them just enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. I might chastise Ben Wheatley as a storyteller, but there’s no doubt that he has an ear for great dialogue and fine judgement on the performers to deliver it.