Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Captive State (2019) in Movies
Jul 6, 2020
Not Captivating Enough - 6/10
Captive State is a 2019 sci-fi/thriller movie directed by Rupert Wyatt and co-written by Rupert Wyatt and Erica Beeney. It was produced by Amblin Partners and Participant Media with producers Rupert Wyatt and David Crockett. The film stars John Goodman, Ashton Sanders, Jonathan Majors, and Vera Farmiga.
In 2019, Chicago is placed under Martial Law as extraterrestrials invade Earth. Attempting to flee the city, the Drummond family, breaks through a barricade to a tunnel exit. Before they can back up and reverse, the aliens attack, vaporizing both parents, with the children having survived in the backseat. Nine years later, 2028, the world has surrendered to the conquering alien forces, who have now become the governing authority. They are called "The Legislators" because all rules of governance and subsequent laws come from them. Walled off from the rest of the city and deep beneath the ground, they've had conscripted humans build them suitable habitats called "Closed Zones" where only high government officials are granted access. Gabriel Drummond (Ashton Sanders), the younger son of the Drummond family is confronted by Chicago Police Commander William Mulligan (John Goodman) who believes he is a part of the resistance. Gabriel's brother Rafe Drummond (Jonathan Majors) was part of the resistance but died on a mission and murals are painted of him in Pilsen, the poor part of town, where Gabriel lives. Mulligan however is not convinced the resistance group, called Phoenix has been neutralized as believed and continues to work towards bringing them down.
This movie was not at all what I expected. I thought it was going to be better than what it was and that's because I didn't even have high expectations going into it. So from the previews/trailers it looked like it was going to be a bigger scale resistance. When I hear resistance fighting, I guess I picture more like fighting like Fallen Skies or like the resistance fighters in Star Wars. This was more of a political/spy thriller going back and forth between the point of view from members of the resistance and those tasked with bringing them down. It had sprinkling of sci-fi and aliens but was too grounded in reality to make it entertaining. It seemed very "done before" and lacked originality. John Goodman did a good job and so did Ashton Sanders but I feel this movie suffered from a bad plot to begin with. Or maybe it sounds good on paper but the delivery failed. Visually it was appealing, the aliens and ships and things looked wonderful but after watching seemed like it wasn't enough to leave the audience satisfied. I give it a 6/10.
In 2019, Chicago is placed under Martial Law as extraterrestrials invade Earth. Attempting to flee the city, the Drummond family, breaks through a barricade to a tunnel exit. Before they can back up and reverse, the aliens attack, vaporizing both parents, with the children having survived in the backseat. Nine years later, 2028, the world has surrendered to the conquering alien forces, who have now become the governing authority. They are called "The Legislators" because all rules of governance and subsequent laws come from them. Walled off from the rest of the city and deep beneath the ground, they've had conscripted humans build them suitable habitats called "Closed Zones" where only high government officials are granted access. Gabriel Drummond (Ashton Sanders), the younger son of the Drummond family is confronted by Chicago Police Commander William Mulligan (John Goodman) who believes he is a part of the resistance. Gabriel's brother Rafe Drummond (Jonathan Majors) was part of the resistance but died on a mission and murals are painted of him in Pilsen, the poor part of town, where Gabriel lives. Mulligan however is not convinced the resistance group, called Phoenix has been neutralized as believed and continues to work towards bringing them down.
This movie was not at all what I expected. I thought it was going to be better than what it was and that's because I didn't even have high expectations going into it. So from the previews/trailers it looked like it was going to be a bigger scale resistance. When I hear resistance fighting, I guess I picture more like fighting like Fallen Skies or like the resistance fighters in Star Wars. This was more of a political/spy thriller going back and forth between the point of view from members of the resistance and those tasked with bringing them down. It had sprinkling of sci-fi and aliens but was too grounded in reality to make it entertaining. It seemed very "done before" and lacked originality. John Goodman did a good job and so did Ashton Sanders but I feel this movie suffered from a bad plot to begin with. Or maybe it sounds good on paper but the delivery failed. Visually it was appealing, the aliens and ships and things looked wonderful but after watching seemed like it wasn't enough to leave the audience satisfied. I give it a 6/10.
Ross (3284 KP) rated We Ride The Storm in Books
May 18, 2021
Great Asian-inspired twisting, back-stabbing fantasy
'We Ride the Storm' is an epic fantasy book set in an Asian-inspired world, with savage tribes, in-bred empires and age-old family rivalries.
We see the story unfold through the eyes of three characters: a princess of the Kisian empire (who is the step-daughter of the empire, so a princess in name only); an intriguing assassin and a tribal warrior forced into nomadic life. The plot revolves around a building conflict between the empire and its subjects and neighbours, largely driven by the accidental actions of the aforementioned assassin.
The princess is a well-formed character who quickly moves from plotting with her brother to take their family's rightful place at the head of the empire to siding with the crippled cruel emperor, seeking her own place. Her story is straight out of a Disney film, refused her chance to use her martial skills and forced to marry into power as her only contribution to the family's strength.
The nomadic warrior should have been intriguing, given his initial scene where he is cutting the heads off his fallen comrades and enemies, driven by a religious zeal that a person's head must be removed and properly laid to rest to release their soul. However, he quickly became flat and irritating, his zealous nature making him whiny. His story is the most exciting, though, as his tribe is forced into serving the empire (I think) and put aside their traditionally passive nature in order to secure new lands for themselves.
The final PoV character, the assassin, is by far the most original - she has an extra voice in her head (the background still a mystery), a presence who can inhabit corpses, allowing for some interesting escapes and plans. Her role is slightly comedic, dashing from one job to another across the country, often conflicting jobs, in order to try and release herself from the voice in her head.
The story involves a great amount of plotting and double-crossing, some excellent action scenes and a complex, weaving plot. The only downside for me was remembering who was who, who the empire was, their enemies etc, as different names were sometimes given and I found it hard to remember. Also, some major plot points were initially exposed in fairly throw-away style and later passages made no sense without picking up on them (specifically the voice in the assassin's head, but also aspects of the possession and other events which were easy to miss).
A great read and with a sequel already out, a series I will stick with.
I received a free copy from the publishers and netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
We see the story unfold through the eyes of three characters: a princess of the Kisian empire (who is the step-daughter of the empire, so a princess in name only); an intriguing assassin and a tribal warrior forced into nomadic life. The plot revolves around a building conflict between the empire and its subjects and neighbours, largely driven by the accidental actions of the aforementioned assassin.
The princess is a well-formed character who quickly moves from plotting with her brother to take their family's rightful place at the head of the empire to siding with the crippled cruel emperor, seeking her own place. Her story is straight out of a Disney film, refused her chance to use her martial skills and forced to marry into power as her only contribution to the family's strength.
The nomadic warrior should have been intriguing, given his initial scene where he is cutting the heads off his fallen comrades and enemies, driven by a religious zeal that a person's head must be removed and properly laid to rest to release their soul. However, he quickly became flat and irritating, his zealous nature making him whiny. His story is the most exciting, though, as his tribe is forced into serving the empire (I think) and put aside their traditionally passive nature in order to secure new lands for themselves.
The final PoV character, the assassin, is by far the most original - she has an extra voice in her head (the background still a mystery), a presence who can inhabit corpses, allowing for some interesting escapes and plans. Her role is slightly comedic, dashing from one job to another across the country, often conflicting jobs, in order to try and release herself from the voice in her head.
The story involves a great amount of plotting and double-crossing, some excellent action scenes and a complex, weaving plot. The only downside for me was remembering who was who, who the empire was, their enemies etc, as different names were sometimes given and I found it hard to remember. Also, some major plot points were initially exposed in fairly throw-away style and later passages made no sense without picking up on them (specifically the voice in the assassin's head, but also aspects of the possession and other events which were easy to miss).
A great read and with a sequel already out, a series I will stick with.
I received a free copy from the publishers and netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Melanie Caldicott (6 KP) rated 10 Minutes 38 Seconds in This Strange World in Books
Apr 29, 2021
You can also read my review at my blog - https://roamingthroughbooks.wordpress.com
I saw this book reviewed on The Sky Arts Book Club and Shafak was interviewed and I think I fell a little in love. Shafak is a beautiful human being who is currently self-exiled from Turkey to the content of her novels being subject to investigation as part of a legal movement in which writers are frequently prosecuted. A passionate storyteller, who writes openly about human rights, her protagonists are often the fallen, forgotten and marginalised. Needless to say I have been looking forward to reading this ever since.
10 Minutes 38 Seconds in this Strange World is a novel about a murdered street walker, Tequila Leila and the last moments of brain activity that is said to occur after the heart has stopped beating. The memories of her life flood back, often related to taste and smell and we start to learn about the story of her life.
Central to her memories and providing a backbone to her life were The Five, – five people with which she formed close, integral friendships and in the absence of her blood relatives, are Leila’s “family”.
The book is structured around three parts – the first, The Mind telling the stories of her post-mortem memories, the second, The Body about how she was murdered and the impact it has on The Five, and finally, The Soul which is a touching finale in which The Five determine to give Leila the send-off she deserves.
Shafak is such a clever storyteller and is able to illuminate aspects of humanity which is often avoided or ignored, which make us feel uncomfortable, and yet her tenderness and compassion shine through the portrayal of all her characters enabling the reader to walk a mile in the shoes of those who are often forgotten.
For a book centred around death, an issue that rarely sits comfortably with human beings, 10 Minutes 38 Seconds in this Strange World confronts it without fear. She skilfully takes a sex worker’s body which is disregarded in its anonymity by those that are responsible for sweeping up the detritus of the Istanbul streets, and reveals a story of a life, full of tragedy, joy and love.
I love how Elif Shafak takes the stories of all of The Five and transforms the insignificant to the significant through the love they have for Leila and each other. In a society which elevates the rich and famous and makes their voices the loudest and most significant in the world, I loved the truth which was affirmed in this book about what a life of substance really means.
I saw this book reviewed on The Sky Arts Book Club and Shafak was interviewed and I think I fell a little in love. Shafak is a beautiful human being who is currently self-exiled from Turkey to the content of her novels being subject to investigation as part of a legal movement in which writers are frequently prosecuted. A passionate storyteller, who writes openly about human rights, her protagonists are often the fallen, forgotten and marginalised. Needless to say I have been looking forward to reading this ever since.
10 Minutes 38 Seconds in this Strange World is a novel about a murdered street walker, Tequila Leila and the last moments of brain activity that is said to occur after the heart has stopped beating. The memories of her life flood back, often related to taste and smell and we start to learn about the story of her life.
Central to her memories and providing a backbone to her life were The Five, – five people with which she formed close, integral friendships and in the absence of her blood relatives, are Leila’s “family”.
The book is structured around three parts – the first, The Mind telling the stories of her post-mortem memories, the second, The Body about how she was murdered and the impact it has on The Five, and finally, The Soul which is a touching finale in which The Five determine to give Leila the send-off she deserves.
Shafak is such a clever storyteller and is able to illuminate aspects of humanity which is often avoided or ignored, which make us feel uncomfortable, and yet her tenderness and compassion shine through the portrayal of all her characters enabling the reader to walk a mile in the shoes of those who are often forgotten.
For a book centred around death, an issue that rarely sits comfortably with human beings, 10 Minutes 38 Seconds in this Strange World confronts it without fear. She skilfully takes a sex worker’s body which is disregarded in its anonymity by those that are responsible for sweeping up the detritus of the Istanbul streets, and reveals a story of a life, full of tragedy, joy and love.
I love how Elif Shafak takes the stories of all of The Five and transforms the insignificant to the significant through the love they have for Leila and each other. In a society which elevates the rich and famous and makes their voices the loudest and most significant in the world, I loved the truth which was affirmed in this book about what a life of substance really means.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Yes Infinity War was good... but for me, Ant-Man And The Wasp was better. Yes IW was epic and devastating, but out of the two I didn't have any quibbles about this one. The CGI was what really did it for me. In IW Thanos' minions looked terrible, even when you take into consideration that they're aliens. But seeing the CGI in the flashback scenes in this one I was impressed at how real it all looked.
This is another film that makes me wish companies would think before they make their trailers. Fallout showed you a trailer that makes it look like Cavill is fighting Cruise and gives away a plot point that, at that point in the actual film, isn't certain. Fallen Kingdom shows you the shot of our giant aquatic friend playing with surfers, which in the actual movie doesn't happen until the closing scenes. In one of the Ant-Man trailers we see what amounts to the end of credits scene... yes there are things that are added to fit with the MCU timeline, but I don't feel like that really makes any difference to the situation. I also think that they should have left the shrinking building out of the trailers to give that a bigger impact in the release.
As far as the movies of the MCU go there are definitely some that are on the funnier side, and this fits that bill. Paul Rudd is obviously still a little goofy, and has an amazing montage sequence as he battles with his last few days of house arrest. But the real comedic star of this for me was Michael Peña. Lovable and an absolute gem. His face when he gets his hands on the Hot Wheels case... kid in a candy store. I truly hope that he survived the dusting of Infinity War. Pipe dreams I know, but I'm hoping he makes it through so he can Neville Longbottom Thanos.
To briefly cover the mid credit scene, which obviously left me with my jaw dropped a bit. There's one thing I'm wondering about, Scott says... "our new ghost friend"... now initially you'd think that he's talking about Ava, but she went off separately at the end of the film and it's got to take a fairly long time to make a new Quantum Tunnel, so could he be talking about someone else?
I still don't quite understand the decision to release this after IW considering the film itself is based before in the timeline, the only thing requiring it to be that way were the after credit scenes. Bit of a shame as I feel like after the epic nature of IW this has suffered as it's not on the same world ending and story completing level
This is another film that makes me wish companies would think before they make their trailers. Fallout showed you a trailer that makes it look like Cavill is fighting Cruise and gives away a plot point that, at that point in the actual film, isn't certain. Fallen Kingdom shows you the shot of our giant aquatic friend playing with surfers, which in the actual movie doesn't happen until the closing scenes. In one of the Ant-Man trailers we see what amounts to the end of credits scene... yes there are things that are added to fit with the MCU timeline, but I don't feel like that really makes any difference to the situation. I also think that they should have left the shrinking building out of the trailers to give that a bigger impact in the release.
As far as the movies of the MCU go there are definitely some that are on the funnier side, and this fits that bill. Paul Rudd is obviously still a little goofy, and has an amazing montage sequence as he battles with his last few days of house arrest. But the real comedic star of this for me was Michael Peña. Lovable and an absolute gem. His face when he gets his hands on the Hot Wheels case... kid in a candy store. I truly hope that he survived the dusting of Infinity War. Pipe dreams I know, but I'm hoping he makes it through so he can Neville Longbottom Thanos.
To briefly cover the mid credit scene, which obviously left me with my jaw dropped a bit. There's one thing I'm wondering about, Scott says... "our new ghost friend"... now initially you'd think that he's talking about Ava, but she went off separately at the end of the film and it's got to take a fairly long time to make a new Quantum Tunnel, so could he be talking about someone else?
I still don't quite understand the decision to release this after IW considering the film itself is based before in the timeline, the only thing requiring it to be that way were the after credit scenes. Bit of a shame as I feel like after the epic nature of IW this has suffered as it's not on the same world ending and story completing level
Mythic Battles: Pantheon
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Hera, tired of Zeus' infidelity, decides to take her revenge and releases the Titans on Mount...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Will Smith plays top US hit-man Henry Brogan who is making the world "safer" one bullet at a time! With the mirror telling him his age, Henry hands in his firearm (not withstanding the arsenal under his stairs) to spend more time going fishing and doing the crossword.
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Lost Angel in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book had almost too much going on, with an extensive glossary in the beginning pages - complete with color photos - that I needed to read beforehand to keep up with the plot. Javier Sierra made a point of mixing fact with fiction in this novel, and the book reads like an extensive 'conspiracy theory.' My husband is much more familiar with many aspects of the plot, and I often asked him if what I was reading about was really true or not. The book opens with a quotation of Genesis 6: 2-3, which states "...the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.'" This is followed by a quote from John Dee, who figures prominently in the plot, though I did not find the quote to be especially inspiring.
The main focus of the book is about a group of people who consider themselves descendants of those angels that joined with "the daughters of man," and want to find a way to get back into heaven. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this -- murder, deceit, even putting the whole planet in jeopardy.
The main character, Julia Alvarez, is a psychic who is completely duped by their antics. I understand that the author means for the reader to feel sympathy for the angelic descendants through Julia's narration, but the way that Julia allows herself to be used and deceived by even her own husband disgusts me. She believes whatever they tell her and does not question anything. In fact, anyone that does question this main family is characterized as foolish and forgettable, such as Ellen Watson and Inspector Figueiras.
There was one main problem I had with the plot, which is that in the Bible, the angels that mate with human women are 'fallen' because they disobeyed God, which is never addressed. What is also never addressed is any scriptural substantiation for what they believed about Noah and the ark. They believed they could force God to take them back into heaven with their thrown-together mish-mash of technology. How is that believable? God kicked the angels out - they certainly can't force their way back in! Not to mention, this family does not back up their belief that they are descendants of angels with actual scientific proof, such as DNA tests, even though they all claim to be men (and woman) of science.
Overall, the book twists a blasphemous tale of Biblical scripture, using factual information to support a fictitious plot. It has suspense, intrigue, and even a bit of romance, but the end is neither believable nor enjoyable. While books of this nature became popular thanks to the works of Dan Brown, (yes, I've read his stuff, too), I found this book to be merely an okay read.
The main focus of the book is about a group of people who consider themselves descendants of those angels that joined with "the daughters of man," and want to find a way to get back into heaven. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this -- murder, deceit, even putting the whole planet in jeopardy.
The main character, Julia Alvarez, is a psychic who is completely duped by their antics. I understand that the author means for the reader to feel sympathy for the angelic descendants through Julia's narration, but the way that Julia allows herself to be used and deceived by even her own husband disgusts me. She believes whatever they tell her and does not question anything. In fact, anyone that does question this main family is characterized as foolish and forgettable, such as Ellen Watson and Inspector Figueiras.
There was one main problem I had with the plot, which is that in the Bible, the angels that mate with human women are 'fallen' because they disobeyed God, which is never addressed. What is also never addressed is any scriptural substantiation for what they believed about Noah and the ark. They believed they could force God to take them back into heaven with their thrown-together mish-mash of technology. How is that believable? God kicked the angels out - they certainly can't force their way back in! Not to mention, this family does not back up their belief that they are descendants of angels with actual scientific proof, such as DNA tests, even though they all claim to be men (and woman) of science.
Overall, the book twists a blasphemous tale of Biblical scripture, using factual information to support a fictitious plot. It has suspense, intrigue, and even a bit of romance, but the end is neither believable nor enjoyable. While books of this nature became popular thanks to the works of Dan Brown, (yes, I've read his stuff, too), I found this book to be merely an okay read.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Somewhat misleading but thrilling nonetheless
It’s best to start off this review as honest as possible. If you’re expecting a fully-fledged sequel or even a prequel to Matt Reeves’ brilliant monster horror, Cloverfield in 10 Cloverfield Lane, you’ll be very disappointed.
But, if you’re expecting a superbly written, well-acted and claustrophobic thriller, then this is definitely the film for you. Dan Trachtenberg, who makes his directorial debut with this feature, has crafted a taut film that has no real connection with the 2008 hit. So is it as good?
10 Cloverfield Lane follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as she embarks on a new chapter in her life after a break-up. Unfortunately, a car crash leaves her seriously injured and unconscious. After waking up in an underground bunker, she meets her saviour in Howard (John Goodman), and as the story progresses, Michelle and fellow resident Emmett, try to make a bid for freedom.
The performances by the cast of three are terrific with Winstead coming on leaps and bounds since her role in Final Destination 3 and John Goodman is absolutely incredible. Cloverfield utilised its monster very well, but Goodman is more than a match with a simple shaking of his fists – his booming voice and burly frame mean he was a perfect casting choice and a human as psychotic as Howard is infinitely more terrifying to me than any monster.
It’s all very Hitchcockian, claustrophobic and exceptionally tense. Director Dan Trachtenberg has a real eye for the smaller details and the underground bunker setting is the perfect location to craft this kind of film. The use of jagged camera angles and low shots help aid the enclosed feeling and you can’t help but become panicked with Michelle, as she desperately tries to figure out a way to freedom.
After the bloated mess of London Has Fallen and the overlong Allegiant, it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t dwell more than it needs to. At 103 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane is relatively short and all the better for it. Despite only having three characters and being confined to a few small rooms for the majority of the running time, it never drags or becomes dull.
Unfortunately, the final third unravels a little of this good work, coming across like the ending to a completely different film; but Trachtenberg’s ideas and reasoning behind the finale are clear throughout, despite the lack of connection to the two acts that preceded it.
Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a smart and well-thought out thriller that is related to Cloverfield in name only. That’s no bad thing, as the film we are left with is one of the best directorial debuts in years, even though its muddled ending leaves somewhat of a sour taste.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/20/somewhat-misleading-but-thrilling-nonetheless-10-cloverfield-lane-review/
But, if you’re expecting a superbly written, well-acted and claustrophobic thriller, then this is definitely the film for you. Dan Trachtenberg, who makes his directorial debut with this feature, has crafted a taut film that has no real connection with the 2008 hit. So is it as good?
10 Cloverfield Lane follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as she embarks on a new chapter in her life after a break-up. Unfortunately, a car crash leaves her seriously injured and unconscious. After waking up in an underground bunker, she meets her saviour in Howard (John Goodman), and as the story progresses, Michelle and fellow resident Emmett, try to make a bid for freedom.
The performances by the cast of three are terrific with Winstead coming on leaps and bounds since her role in Final Destination 3 and John Goodman is absolutely incredible. Cloverfield utilised its monster very well, but Goodman is more than a match with a simple shaking of his fists – his booming voice and burly frame mean he was a perfect casting choice and a human as psychotic as Howard is infinitely more terrifying to me than any monster.
It’s all very Hitchcockian, claustrophobic and exceptionally tense. Director Dan Trachtenberg has a real eye for the smaller details and the underground bunker setting is the perfect location to craft this kind of film. The use of jagged camera angles and low shots help aid the enclosed feeling and you can’t help but become panicked with Michelle, as she desperately tries to figure out a way to freedom.
After the bloated mess of London Has Fallen and the overlong Allegiant, it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t dwell more than it needs to. At 103 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane is relatively short and all the better for it. Despite only having three characters and being confined to a few small rooms for the majority of the running time, it never drags or becomes dull.
Unfortunately, the final third unravels a little of this good work, coming across like the ending to a completely different film; but Trachtenberg’s ideas and reasoning behind the finale are clear throughout, despite the lack of connection to the two acts that preceded it.
Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a smart and well-thought out thriller that is related to Cloverfield in name only. That’s no bad thing, as the film we are left with is one of the best directorial debuts in years, even though its muddled ending leaves somewhat of a sour taste.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/20/somewhat-misleading-but-thrilling-nonetheless-10-cloverfield-lane-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Nov 11, 2018
Strong performances eleveates this "Art House" film.
With not a whole lot of interest filling out the screens at the multi-plexes at this time, I thought I'd head to the "Art House" to check out Melissa McCarthy in CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? This film is garnering strong Oscar buzz for McCarthy's performance and I figured I'd see for myself.
And...darn it all...after a slow start, it does turn into an Oscar worthy performance, after all.
Telling the true tale of writer Lee Israel (based on her memoir), CYEFM tells the story of Israel's descent into criminal behavior to make ends meet by forging literary documents from the past and selling them as the real deal.
Starring as Israel, McCarthy drops all the artifice and bluster that she usually brings to her comedic characters to bring us a "non-people" person (Israel's own words) who is down on her luck. I was a bit skeptical of this performance in the first half of the film for I thought she had fallen victim to the "comedian trying their hands at a serious role" syndrome, being WAY too serious and glum, without a hint of humor. But, in the 2nd half of the film, McCarthy really finds this character and we begin to see a fully formed 3 dimensional person emerging on the screen - warts and all. And, when Israel/McCarthy gives the speech that will be shown at her Oscar nomination, she shows that she is fully deserving of any accolades that might come her way. It is a strong, humanistic portrayal of a person trying to figure it out - and learning that the shortcut probably isn't the best way to go.
Aiding her in her journey - and in this film - is Richard E. Grant as Jack Hock, another lost soul trying to make it in this world while having a good time doing it. Grant has the "showier" of the 2 roles and he revels in his moments. I would be fine with Grant being nominated as well - it is that strong of a performance and balances McCarthy's character wonderfully.
I did have a problem with the first 1/2 of this film, mainly for I disliked the 2 main characters being portrayed, they are certainly NOT 2 people to root for and I felt the film was only showing 1 dimensional stereotypes, but once McCarthy and Grant devise the forgery scheme, the film - and the performances - get very interesting, and multi-layered, indeed.
Keep in mind that this is an "Art House" film, by that I mean "talky". There isn't a whole lot of action and a TON of atmosphere and dialogue, not the type of film for everyone, but for those of you who like this sort of thing, you'll be rewarded by strong performances that lifts this film to a higher level.
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...darn it all...after a slow start, it does turn into an Oscar worthy performance, after all.
Telling the true tale of writer Lee Israel (based on her memoir), CYEFM tells the story of Israel's descent into criminal behavior to make ends meet by forging literary documents from the past and selling them as the real deal.
Starring as Israel, McCarthy drops all the artifice and bluster that she usually brings to her comedic characters to bring us a "non-people" person (Israel's own words) who is down on her luck. I was a bit skeptical of this performance in the first half of the film for I thought she had fallen victim to the "comedian trying their hands at a serious role" syndrome, being WAY too serious and glum, without a hint of humor. But, in the 2nd half of the film, McCarthy really finds this character and we begin to see a fully formed 3 dimensional person emerging on the screen - warts and all. And, when Israel/McCarthy gives the speech that will be shown at her Oscar nomination, she shows that she is fully deserving of any accolades that might come her way. It is a strong, humanistic portrayal of a person trying to figure it out - and learning that the shortcut probably isn't the best way to go.
Aiding her in her journey - and in this film - is Richard E. Grant as Jack Hock, another lost soul trying to make it in this world while having a good time doing it. Grant has the "showier" of the 2 roles and he revels in his moments. I would be fine with Grant being nominated as well - it is that strong of a performance and balances McCarthy's character wonderfully.
I did have a problem with the first 1/2 of this film, mainly for I disliked the 2 main characters being portrayed, they are certainly NOT 2 people to root for and I felt the film was only showing 1 dimensional stereotypes, but once McCarthy and Grant devise the forgery scheme, the film - and the performances - get very interesting, and multi-layered, indeed.
Keep in mind that this is an "Art House" film, by that I mean "talky". There isn't a whole lot of action and a TON of atmosphere and dialogue, not the type of film for everyone, but for those of you who like this sort of thing, you'll be rewarded by strong performances that lifts this film to a higher level.
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated I, Tonya (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Most people when they hear the name Tonya Harding immediately have images of Nancy Kerrigan holding her knee and crying out “Why?” over and over again come to their minds. They may even think of Harding herself crying to a panel of judges about the state of the laces on her skates during Olympic competition. Her name and image became a point of ridicule and shame. She became the butt of jokes throughout the 90s and a never-ending punchline. People were not sympathetic to her and were not willing to hear her story. She was condemned to being the monster that we convinced ourselves that she was. The film I, Tonya sheds light onto who this woman was in demonstrating the complexities of her upbringing, years of abuse at the hands of her mother and later her husband. Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad, Wolf of Wall Street) stars as Tonya Harding, the disgraced Olympic figure skater.
I Tonya, takes audiences deep into the world that Tonya Harding experiences. We see the heartache, we bear witness to the brutal violence and abuse she suffers. Audiences find themselves rooting for Tonya to break out and become a success. The film, based on interviews, court testimony, and sports and news footage allows us all to have a greater picture of exactly who Tonya was. It points out in a mixture of humor, terror, and realism what the public got wrong about her and how we all became her worst abusers. The public wanted her to not only fail, but to fail miserably as most had fallen in love with her competitor and the victim of an attack committed in Tonya’s name. I Tonya, through brutal honesty shows us how someone who is already flawed due to their appearance, presentation, or lack of polish can quickly become villainized because they do not fit our description of innocent or are seen as someone we want representing us. The true reality of I, Tonya is that the film is a reflection in the mirror. It is one of the most honest representations of what the human, and more specifically, the American experience is. You have successes and failures, but despite this, we are recognized for the worst actions that are linked to our names and images.
I, Tonya takes the best elements of Mommy Dearest, Blades of Glory, Black Swan, and Sleeping With The Enemy in order to create a sports biopic that audiences will not realize they needed until they find themselves walking out of the theater. Margot Robbie, Allison Janney (Mom, The Help, Juno), and Sebastian Stan (Captain America: Civil War) will have audiences angered, elated, and heartbroken as they take audiences on a full tour of their emotions. I, Tonya is an instant classic that will capture audiences with its storytelling and demonstrate that Tonya Harding’s life is much more than a one-liner.
I Tonya, takes audiences deep into the world that Tonya Harding experiences. We see the heartache, we bear witness to the brutal violence and abuse she suffers. Audiences find themselves rooting for Tonya to break out and become a success. The film, based on interviews, court testimony, and sports and news footage allows us all to have a greater picture of exactly who Tonya was. It points out in a mixture of humor, terror, and realism what the public got wrong about her and how we all became her worst abusers. The public wanted her to not only fail, but to fail miserably as most had fallen in love with her competitor and the victim of an attack committed in Tonya’s name. I Tonya, through brutal honesty shows us how someone who is already flawed due to their appearance, presentation, or lack of polish can quickly become villainized because they do not fit our description of innocent or are seen as someone we want representing us. The true reality of I, Tonya is that the film is a reflection in the mirror. It is one of the most honest representations of what the human, and more specifically, the American experience is. You have successes and failures, but despite this, we are recognized for the worst actions that are linked to our names and images.
I, Tonya takes the best elements of Mommy Dearest, Blades of Glory, Black Swan, and Sleeping With The Enemy in order to create a sports biopic that audiences will not realize they needed until they find themselves walking out of the theater. Margot Robbie, Allison Janney (Mom, The Help, Juno), and Sebastian Stan (Captain America: Civil War) will have audiences angered, elated, and heartbroken as they take audiences on a full tour of their emotions. I, Tonya is an instant classic that will capture audiences with its storytelling and demonstrate that Tonya Harding’s life is much more than a one-liner.