Search
Search results
Gray's Anatomy: Selected Writings
Book
From the author of Straw Dogs, John Gray's Gray's Anatomy is a pugnacious and brilliantly readable...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
The self confessed king of cinema surrealism, Luis Buñuel has 15 feature films listed as 7.5 or higher on IMDb, proving his life’s work is more loved and respected as you might think. This title was the only one I had really heard of being talked about by serious film folk that stuck in my mind, so it was as good a place as any to start with. It is an odd beast that I had a little trouble getting onboard with. It feels entirely 70s and kitsch, and on the surface feels at times little better than The Confessions of a Window Cleaner, or some such bawdy farce. To say it is a comedy is to take comedy to mean intellectual absurdism that pokes fun at the conventions and habits that lurk inside humanity, and the sophistication that masks our base instincts and flaws. I got the “joke”, it just all feels very dated now.
The cast have a lot of fun in the dreamlike landscape of manners and appetites, and the symbolism that abounds is indeed quite clever and arch if you want to analyse it. What I did like is how it feels increasingly like an actual dream, where things done and said begin to lose true meaning, and events and places merge into one flow of madness. You can definitely see a lot of ideas here that have been borrowed by other films since, and I appreciate what it tries to do, but ultimately this one left me a little cold. It has a pompous and smug air about it that is not for me, although I totally understand why it is held in high regard. I will probably never choose to watch it again.
The cast have a lot of fun in the dreamlike landscape of manners and appetites, and the symbolism that abounds is indeed quite clever and arch if you want to analyse it. What I did like is how it feels increasingly like an actual dream, where things done and said begin to lose true meaning, and events and places merge into one flow of madness. You can definitely see a lot of ideas here that have been borrowed by other films since, and I appreciate what it tries to do, but ultimately this one left me a little cold. It has a pompous and smug air about it that is not for me, although I totally understand why it is held in high regard. I will probably never choose to watch it again.
The Best of Wodehouse: An Anthology
Book
.G. Wodehouse was, by common consent, the most brilliant writer of English comedy in the 20th...
A Work in Progress: The Untold Story of the Crawley Writers’ Group
Alex Woolf, Martin Jenkins and Dan Brotzel
8.0
Rate It
Book
They've all got a book in them, unfortunately. In December 2016, Julia Greengage, aspiring writer...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman: The Movie (1966) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019 (Updated Feb 18, 2019)
Some days, you just can’t get rid of a bomb!
Before the Frank Miller’s Dark Knight, there was the Caped Crusader; The founding member of the Dynamic Duo, Batman and his ward, the Boy Wonder, Robin. In order to promote the series, after Batman’s first season, a theatrical version was green-lit. Bigger and longer than any of the soon to be syndicated TV show, which would ultimately run for three seasons, Batman was on the big screen with “all his wonderful toys” and a whole host of new ones.
Welcome, the Bat Ladder, Bat-boat, Bat-copter and of course the Bat Shark Repellent! The wry humour can easily be dismissed as hammy and cheap, but in fact, this incarnation of Batman struck a cord and ran with it with confidence. And in this era of The Dark Knight, Batman Light is a welcome respite from all the dower self flagellation of the character.
The late Adam West and Burt Ward are as dry as ever as they over act and dramatically fight crime against a collection of cartoon villains, with this movie delivering the most popular, The Joker (Caesar Romero), Catwoman (Lee Meriwether), The Riddler (Frank Gorshin, all of whom have been brought together by Burgess Meredith’s, Penguin.
Fun from start to finish, with Batman gags, satirical humour and out and out farce! (The bomb gag is classic!) An outrageous plot involving dehydrating the UN Security Council is delivered at a breakneck pace, with one set piece being delivered after another. It is hard to imagine that so much happens in such a lean running time. This is a smart comedy with does not out stay its welcome.
And that is the thing with Batman (1966); It is a smart comedy posing a piece of nonsense. A point proven by its popularity 50 years on. If anything, the recent Lego Batman Movie plays the same hand, only it gets away with it because its a kids Lego digi-mation. But the humour is very similar, irreverently honouring their source.
If you have not seen this in years and god forbid, not at all then get yourself…
…”to the Batmobile!”
Welcome, the Bat Ladder, Bat-boat, Bat-copter and of course the Bat Shark Repellent! The wry humour can easily be dismissed as hammy and cheap, but in fact, this incarnation of Batman struck a cord and ran with it with confidence. And in this era of The Dark Knight, Batman Light is a welcome respite from all the dower self flagellation of the character.
The late Adam West and Burt Ward are as dry as ever as they over act and dramatically fight crime against a collection of cartoon villains, with this movie delivering the most popular, The Joker (Caesar Romero), Catwoman (Lee Meriwether), The Riddler (Frank Gorshin, all of whom have been brought together by Burgess Meredith’s, Penguin.
Fun from start to finish, with Batman gags, satirical humour and out and out farce! (The bomb gag is classic!) An outrageous plot involving dehydrating the UN Security Council is delivered at a breakneck pace, with one set piece being delivered after another. It is hard to imagine that so much happens in such a lean running time. This is a smart comedy with does not out stay its welcome.
And that is the thing with Batman (1966); It is a smart comedy posing a piece of nonsense. A point proven by its popularity 50 years on. If anything, the recent Lego Batman Movie plays the same hand, only it gets away with it because its a kids Lego digi-mation. But the humour is very similar, irreverently honouring their source.
If you have not seen this in years and god forbid, not at all then get yourself…
…”to the Batmobile!”
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Great Race (1965) in Movies
Jul 6, 2018
A fun throwback to 1920's Silent Film Farces
In a tribute to films of a bygone era, Director Blake Edwards pays homage to silent film farces of the 1920's - even dedicating this film to "Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy" - with the slapstick comedy THE GREAT RACE - and succeeds, mostly.
Reteaming Tony Curtis (as the brave, virtuous and good "The Great Leslie") and Jack Lemmon (as the sinister, dastardly and evil "Professor Fate"), The Great Race is great fun watching these two cartoon characters spar and parry with each other throughout the course of this 2 hour and 40 minute farce.
Lemmon, in particular, relishes in dual roles as the menacing Fate, always dressed in black, twirling his mustache and coming up with scheme after scheme to derail Leslie (think the Coyote in the RoadRunner cartoons). His overacting and hammyness in the character is perfect for the tone that this film has set. And his maniacal laugh is one to remember - unless you are remembering the childlike guffaws of the other character Lemmon portrays, the doppelganger of Fate, Crown Prince Frederick. Both these characters are fun to watch and Fate, especially, plays well against his bumbling assistant and foil, "Max", played in utter buffoonishness by the great Peter Falk.
Joining Curtis for the "good guys" is Natalie Wood as Suffragette and Newspaper
Reporter Maggie DuBois (obviously tailored after real life Suffragette and Newspaper Reporter Nellie Bly). It is said that Curtis and Wood did not get along on set (they had worked together in 2 other films and grew to dislike each other), but their on-screen chemistry cannot be ignored and they are fun together. As is the great Keenan Wynn as Leslie's mechanic and friend Hezekiah Sturdy.
But it is not the characters that makes this film go it is the set pieces and frenetic pacing that Director Edwards put before us. From thrilling chase scenes to a Western barroom brawl, to a trip through a blizzard with a polar bear to the "largest pie fight ever put on screen", this film delivers the goods in a wholesome, 1960's way that makes me truly say...
"They don't make 'em like this anymore".
8 out 10 stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Reteaming Tony Curtis (as the brave, virtuous and good "The Great Leslie") and Jack Lemmon (as the sinister, dastardly and evil "Professor Fate"), The Great Race is great fun watching these two cartoon characters spar and parry with each other throughout the course of this 2 hour and 40 minute farce.
Lemmon, in particular, relishes in dual roles as the menacing Fate, always dressed in black, twirling his mustache and coming up with scheme after scheme to derail Leslie (think the Coyote in the RoadRunner cartoons). His overacting and hammyness in the character is perfect for the tone that this film has set. And his maniacal laugh is one to remember - unless you are remembering the childlike guffaws of the other character Lemmon portrays, the doppelganger of Fate, Crown Prince Frederick. Both these characters are fun to watch and Fate, especially, plays well against his bumbling assistant and foil, "Max", played in utter buffoonishness by the great Peter Falk.
Joining Curtis for the "good guys" is Natalie Wood as Suffragette and Newspaper
Reporter Maggie DuBois (obviously tailored after real life Suffragette and Newspaper Reporter Nellie Bly). It is said that Curtis and Wood did not get along on set (they had worked together in 2 other films and grew to dislike each other), but their on-screen chemistry cannot be ignored and they are fun together. As is the great Keenan Wynn as Leslie's mechanic and friend Hezekiah Sturdy.
But it is not the characters that makes this film go it is the set pieces and frenetic pacing that Director Edwards put before us. From thrilling chase scenes to a Western barroom brawl, to a trip through a blizzard with a polar bear to the "largest pie fight ever put on screen", this film delivers the goods in a wholesome, 1960's way that makes me truly say...
"They don't make 'em like this anymore".
8 out 10 stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Rachel (48 KP) rated The 13th Black Candle in Books
May 27, 2017
Great Characters, Great Story. Great book!
For the first fifteen or so pages I kept thinking "I'm not going to like this". The character of Simon Stacey didn't seem particularly sympathetic nor believable in his reaction to a huge, devastating event in his life.
I am so glad that I persevered with this book. There are a lot of side characters but they are all very fleshed out, apart from one or two that couldn't be until the end of the novel.
Although Simon Stacey is the central character, who I did become to really like and 'get', there are some brilliant characters in the parallel story - the police working the case.
You get to see them all grow and change, there are no stereotypical "This is who they are, this is how they will act regardless of what happens" which seems to be the case a lot of the time when it comes to police characters in novels/TV etc.
This really gives credence and a sense of reality to the story. Some elements are very out of the ordinary and you get to see how an actual person would deal with them!
The storyline itself is intriguing. Parts of it are kept shadowy, which had to be done, and other parts are right in your face from the beginning. What seems like a tiny detail actually turns out to be hugely important and vice versa.
As I said - some aspects are esoteric and unusual but Mr Goodwin manages to keep it utterly believable. I think that is because the mundane elements of life are also included.
The ending was skillfully done. What could have turned into a farce was kept under control and the tension was built in exactly the right way.
The only criticism I have is that I couldn't entirely remember who one or two of the characters actually were once they were revealed. This would definitely be partly my fault though. For various reasons I didn't get to read for three days so memory of the first half of the book wasn't what it should have been.
The only thing I would suggest to the author is that a few more reminders of who some of the lesser characters were would have helped.
There are also a few hints that, perhaps, some people aren't what they seem. Could that be paving the way for a sequel? If it is then that is something I would very eagerly read.
I would recommend this book to most people as it has so many elements to it. It's rather hard to pin down just one genre!
I am so glad that I persevered with this book. There are a lot of side characters but they are all very fleshed out, apart from one or two that couldn't be until the end of the novel.
Although Simon Stacey is the central character, who I did become to really like and 'get', there are some brilliant characters in the parallel story - the police working the case.
You get to see them all grow and change, there are no stereotypical "This is who they are, this is how they will act regardless of what happens" which seems to be the case a lot of the time when it comes to police characters in novels/TV etc.
This really gives credence and a sense of reality to the story. Some elements are very out of the ordinary and you get to see how an actual person would deal with them!
The storyline itself is intriguing. Parts of it are kept shadowy, which had to be done, and other parts are right in your face from the beginning. What seems like a tiny detail actually turns out to be hugely important and vice versa.
As I said - some aspects are esoteric and unusual but Mr Goodwin manages to keep it utterly believable. I think that is because the mundane elements of life are also included.
The ending was skillfully done. What could have turned into a farce was kept under control and the tension was built in exactly the right way.
The only criticism I have is that I couldn't entirely remember who one or two of the characters actually were once they were revealed. This would definitely be partly my fault though. For various reasons I didn't get to read for three days so memory of the first half of the book wasn't what it should have been.
The only thing I would suggest to the author is that a few more reminders of who some of the lesser characters were would have helped.
There are also a few hints that, perhaps, some people aren't what they seem. Could that be paving the way for a sequel? If it is then that is something I would very eagerly read.
I would recommend this book to most people as it has so many elements to it. It's rather hard to pin down just one genre!
JT (287 KP) rated Insidious (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
James Wan has all the talent but for some reason is unable to put the killer instinct into his films and finish them off like they should be. With the exception of being one of the founding members of the Saw franchise, his films to date haven’t quite lived up to the expectations we know he can and should be able to deliver on.
Wan returns with Leigh Whannell the creator and writer of Saw, with the pair looking to yet again scare everyone shitless with a haunted house tale, this time focussing on a young boy whose slipped into a coma and drifted into the outer realms called The Further.
When writing Insidious Whannell wanted to make sure that he avoided all the haunted house cliches, and he pretty much did that. What he failed to do though was script a stronger third act, something which might have brought this up on a par with Saw.
Dalton is the one in peril as he suddenly slips into a coma one morning, his mother Renai (Byrne) is then forced to spend time looking after her trio of kids all the while looking over her shoulder, as she hears one bump to the next occurring both in broad daylight and at night.
After some decent scares from the outset including the old “he’s behind you” and murmurings through the baby monitor the film was almost guilty of slipping into a farce as our protagonist Josh Lambert (Wilson) was forced to engage in some astro physics in order to save the day.
It was a real shame as up till that point you’d have spent most of the run time hiding under the covers, as Wan introduced one jolt after another, some more subtle than others but ultimately offering the same desired effect.
The introduction of Elise Rainier (Lin Shaye) the Ghost hunter whose come to see what all the fuss is about is pretty much inevitable. Armed with the latest high tech equipment and a couple of geeks, the aptly named Specs and Tucker, provides much amusement as Rainier delivers the killer line “It’s not the house that’s haunted”.
The film moves through the gears well, but it’s that annoyingly poor third act that ruins it for me. It does try and redeem itself with an all too predictable ending, those that have seen Wan and Whannel’s other film Dead Silence will know what I mean.
At the end of the day you feel all Wan had to do was hit the target, but this is just off to the right!
Wan returns with Leigh Whannell the creator and writer of Saw, with the pair looking to yet again scare everyone shitless with a haunted house tale, this time focussing on a young boy whose slipped into a coma and drifted into the outer realms called The Further.
When writing Insidious Whannell wanted to make sure that he avoided all the haunted house cliches, and he pretty much did that. What he failed to do though was script a stronger third act, something which might have brought this up on a par with Saw.
Dalton is the one in peril as he suddenly slips into a coma one morning, his mother Renai (Byrne) is then forced to spend time looking after her trio of kids all the while looking over her shoulder, as she hears one bump to the next occurring both in broad daylight and at night.
After some decent scares from the outset including the old “he’s behind you” and murmurings through the baby monitor the film was almost guilty of slipping into a farce as our protagonist Josh Lambert (Wilson) was forced to engage in some astro physics in order to save the day.
It was a real shame as up till that point you’d have spent most of the run time hiding under the covers, as Wan introduced one jolt after another, some more subtle than others but ultimately offering the same desired effect.
The introduction of Elise Rainier (Lin Shaye) the Ghost hunter whose come to see what all the fuss is about is pretty much inevitable. Armed with the latest high tech equipment and a couple of geeks, the aptly named Specs and Tucker, provides much amusement as Rainier delivers the killer line “It’s not the house that’s haunted”.
The film moves through the gears well, but it’s that annoyingly poor third act that ruins it for me. It does try and redeem itself with an all too predictable ending, those that have seen Wan and Whannel’s other film Dead Silence will know what I mean.
At the end of the day you feel all Wan had to do was hit the target, but this is just off to the right!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Apr 19, 2021
Nice Try
I have to admit that I never watched the 2006 BORAT film, but when it’s sequel BORAT SUBSEQUENT MOVIEFILM was nominated for 2 Oscars(!) - including Best Supporting Actress - I knew I would have to check this one out.
I have heard the following words and phrases used to describe the BORAT films: daring, ingenious, hilarious, cringe-inducing, smart, dumb, original and important. I would add one other word to this list:
Boring.
Sitting on the screen for and hour and a half like a Saturday Night Live skit that is being stretched too long, BORAT SUBSEQUENT MOVIEFILM held my attention for about the first 15 minutes where I thought that it was kind of funny and clever. And then it went on…and on…and on…running the same “sabotage” joke into the ground, pulling unsuspecting innocents into the outrageous world of Borat (though, I have to admit that most of these “unsuspecting innocents” knew exactly what was going on and were playing along).
Sasha Baron-Cohen is a smart filmmaker, writer and performer and he has earned the right to do whatever he feels like he wants to do. I prefer him in such movie fare as SWEENEY TODD, LES MISERABLES and the recent TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO SEVEN. But, if he feels like he wants to do things like Borat, who am I to argue. He certainly puts his all into the character, the scenarios and the guerilla film-making that is required, so good for him.
Maria Bakalova is nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar as she plays Borat’s daughter who accompanies him on his journey across America. It is a “fine” performance and brings something that this film sorely needs - heart. But Oscar worthy? I don’t think so.
I must also give credit to the filmmakers for pivoting when the pandemic hit. They were in the middle of creating this (obviously) anti-Trump political farce of a film when Covid-19 forced them to pivot - and pivot they did, making this film as much about the virus than it is about politics.
Ultimately, this is a case where I can admire the attempt, the art, the craftmanship and skill and talent needed to pull this movie off. But as a film, it just didn’t go anywhere and I found myself looking at my watch wondering when this film would be over.
And…no…I don’t think I’ll go back a “catch-up” on the first BORAT film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I have heard the following words and phrases used to describe the BORAT films: daring, ingenious, hilarious, cringe-inducing, smart, dumb, original and important. I would add one other word to this list:
Boring.
Sitting on the screen for and hour and a half like a Saturday Night Live skit that is being stretched too long, BORAT SUBSEQUENT MOVIEFILM held my attention for about the first 15 minutes where I thought that it was kind of funny and clever. And then it went on…and on…and on…running the same “sabotage” joke into the ground, pulling unsuspecting innocents into the outrageous world of Borat (though, I have to admit that most of these “unsuspecting innocents” knew exactly what was going on and were playing along).
Sasha Baron-Cohen is a smart filmmaker, writer and performer and he has earned the right to do whatever he feels like he wants to do. I prefer him in such movie fare as SWEENEY TODD, LES MISERABLES and the recent TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO SEVEN. But, if he feels like he wants to do things like Borat, who am I to argue. He certainly puts his all into the character, the scenarios and the guerilla film-making that is required, so good for him.
Maria Bakalova is nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar as she plays Borat’s daughter who accompanies him on his journey across America. It is a “fine” performance and brings something that this film sorely needs - heart. But Oscar worthy? I don’t think so.
I must also give credit to the filmmakers for pivoting when the pandemic hit. They were in the middle of creating this (obviously) anti-Trump political farce of a film when Covid-19 forced them to pivot - and pivot they did, making this film as much about the virus than it is about politics.
Ultimately, this is a case where I can admire the attempt, the art, the craftmanship and skill and talent needed to pull this movie off. But as a film, it just didn’t go anywhere and I found myself looking at my watch wondering when this film would be over.
And…no…I don’t think I’ll go back a “catch-up” on the first BORAT film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)