Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Snow like Ashes in Books
Oct 9, 2018
The world-building in this book is fascinating. At first, it seems like yet another YA novel about displaced royals trying to win back their kingdom, but this royal is in much more dire straits than most. Meira is a refugee living on the run with seven others, one of them her rightful King. All the rest of their people have been enslaved by the conquering country, and their kingdom's link to the magic inherent in the land has been broken.
A little backdrop is needed. In Meira's land, there are eight countries. The Rhythm countries, where seasons proceed as normal, and the Seasons - 4 countries locked in one season each. The rulers of each country have a magic conduit that lets them feed magic to their people - but the conduits are gender-locked. In four of the countries, only women can use the conduit; in the other four, only men. Meira and her little band are all that's left of the free people of Winter. Spring invaded sixteen years ago, killed Winter's queen, broke the locket that was their magic conduit (each ruler has one) and enslaved their people. Because the queen only had a son, he can't wield Winter's magic anyway. They're still trying to find the two pieces of the locket so when he has a daughter, she can wield it. You'd think at this point, since he's of age, he should be trying to get as many women pregnant as possible to up the odds of getting a royal heir who can wield the magic, but that...doesn't come up.
The book does delve into the country's people being oppressed, used as slaves, and being incredibly abused by the conquering country, and this is where I ran into a quandary. The Season's people reflect their countries: Autumn's people have copper skin, Spring's citizens are blond-haired and green-eyed - and Winter's people are white. Pale skin, snow-white hair, blue eyes. Writing white people as the oppressed people just rubs me the wrong way. (In that false "help I'm being oppressed because other people want equal rights!" kind of way.) Yes, this is fantasy, yes, it has nothing to do with our world's politics - but it bothers me. It's at least not white-savioring, as Meira's trying to save her own people, but I don't know. Is it better or worse to write white people as the oppressed protagonists?
That question aside, this was a well-written novel of fighting against an oppressor. There is definitely still work to be done at the end of the book, and there are two more books, as well as two short stories. While I am a little curious what ultimately happens, I don't know if the series has earned more time on my reading list.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
A little backdrop is needed. In Meira's land, there are eight countries. The Rhythm countries, where seasons proceed as normal, and the Seasons - 4 countries locked in one season each. The rulers of each country have a magic conduit that lets them feed magic to their people - but the conduits are gender-locked. In four of the countries, only women can use the conduit; in the other four, only men. Meira and her little band are all that's left of the free people of Winter. Spring invaded sixteen years ago, killed Winter's queen, broke the locket that was their magic conduit (each ruler has one) and enslaved their people. Because the queen only had a son, he can't wield Winter's magic anyway. They're still trying to find the two pieces of the locket so when he has a daughter, she can wield it. You'd think at this point, since he's of age, he should be trying to get as many women pregnant as possible to up the odds of getting a royal heir who can wield the magic, but that...doesn't come up.
The book does delve into the country's people being oppressed, used as slaves, and being incredibly abused by the conquering country, and this is where I ran into a quandary. The Season's people reflect their countries: Autumn's people have copper skin, Spring's citizens are blond-haired and green-eyed - and Winter's people are white. Pale skin, snow-white hair, blue eyes. Writing white people as the oppressed people just rubs me the wrong way. (In that false "help I'm being oppressed because other people want equal rights!" kind of way.) Yes, this is fantasy, yes, it has nothing to do with our world's politics - but it bothers me. It's at least not white-savioring, as Meira's trying to save her own people, but I don't know. Is it better or worse to write white people as the oppressed protagonists?
That question aside, this was a well-written novel of fighting against an oppressor. There is definitely still work to be done at the end of the book, and there are two more books, as well as two short stories. While I am a little curious what ultimately happens, I don't know if the series has earned more time on my reading list.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Skout+ - Chat, Meet New People
Social Networking and Entertainment
App
Enjoy the AD-FREE version of Skout, the global network for meeting new people. NO ADS, all fun!...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Mario Kart 8 Deluxe in Video Games
Aug 20, 2018
Still one of the best
Mario Kart is one of the classics. Despite now on its 8th iteration, it’s still as good as it ever was and is one of the best games out there to play. No matter which version of Mario Kart I’ve played, I never really have a bad word to say about it, and 8 is no different.
The graphics are fantastic, and a great step up to those I was previously used to on the last version available on the Wii. The gameplay is as you’d expect from Mario Kart and this isn’t a bad thing. Why fix what isn’t broken? I also love the fact that you can now play this online properly against anyone in the world - it’s such a great feature and brings a whole new level of fun to the game. It can get a little dull and predictable if you’re playing locally as a couch co-op (or at least that’s what my other half says as I always win ?), but being able to play online multiplayer is so entertaining and we can play it for hours. Yes it is very frustrating, as sadly real players are a lot more ruthless than the computer players you’re up against locally, but it’s still a lot more fun.
My only criticisms about this game are that whilst it has quite a lot of levels/courses, for me it still isn’t enough. They’re not exactly long races and you can get through them all fairly quickly, and there’s only so many times you can do the same courses. And the only other criticism relates specifically to online play. Online play gives you points, but some players have a lot more points than others (i.e. 5k+, 10k+) which indicates they’ve been playing for a lot longer. The online match ups take no account of points and you can potentially end up playing against players with a huge difference in skill and points level. It’d be nice if they could try and match players together within a certain points, as it might make it more of a fairer race and a little more challenging if players are all similarly matched.
The graphics are fantastic, and a great step up to those I was previously used to on the last version available on the Wii. The gameplay is as you’d expect from Mario Kart and this isn’t a bad thing. Why fix what isn’t broken? I also love the fact that you can now play this online properly against anyone in the world - it’s such a great feature and brings a whole new level of fun to the game. It can get a little dull and predictable if you’re playing locally as a couch co-op (or at least that’s what my other half says as I always win ?), but being able to play online multiplayer is so entertaining and we can play it for hours. Yes it is very frustrating, as sadly real players are a lot more ruthless than the computer players you’re up against locally, but it’s still a lot more fun.
My only criticisms about this game are that whilst it has quite a lot of levels/courses, for me it still isn’t enough. They’re not exactly long races and you can get through them all fairly quickly, and there’s only so many times you can do the same courses. And the only other criticism relates specifically to online play. Online play gives you points, but some players have a lot more points than others (i.e. 5k+, 10k+) which indicates they’ve been playing for a lot longer. The online match ups take no account of points and you can potentially end up playing against players with a huge difference in skill and points level. It’d be nice if they could try and match players together within a certain points, as it might make it more of a fairer race and a little more challenging if players are all similarly matched.
Docker High Performance
Book
Master performance enhancement practices for Docker, and unlock faster and more efficient container...
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When I first heard that Warner Bros. was planning a series of films based on the classic DC Comics characters akin to what Marvel has successfully done, I was intrigued with the possibilities. With the release of Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, we get the first look into that universe and I have to say it is one that has more than a few stumbles.
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
Natasha Khan recommended Bad by Michael Jackson in Music (curated)
A Spoonful of Sugar
Book
'They say you can never truly love a child that is not your own, but that goes against every...
Lucky Seven: 7-Minute Workout Challenge Musical Interval Timer with RunKeeper Integration & more
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
7 minutes to spare? That’s enough for a workout! LuckySeven is the best way to enjoy the...
Gangstar Rio: City of Saints
Games and Entertainment
App
The acclaimed Gangstar series is back on iPhone and iPad to offer you a whole new place to have...