Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Action-packed and cracked me up
Thor, the God of Thunder, is about to ascend to his rightful place as King of Asgard and, in the process, will go up against the greatest opposition he has ever faced. While Thor doesn’t quite earn a spot in the upper echelon of Marvel films, it is still quite awesome and pleasing to watch. It’s the fun origin story of how Thor first came to interact with Earthlings.
Acting: 10
Although I cringe when Chris Hemsworth takes his shirt off and my wife is in the room, he plays a damn good Thor. Like Robert Downey’s Tony Stark, you can’t help but fall for Hemsworth’s charisma and how he treats the character. There is one particular moment I think he captured exceptionally well: After tearing through a number of dudes like it’s nothing, he’s staring down at his hammer which is stuck in the mud. He has this confident all-knowing smirk on his face as he prepares to lift it…and the hammer doesn’t budge. The absolute heartbreak he experiences after is definitely felt as you wanted him to succeed. There were a number of other solid performances throughout this film, but Hemsworth steals the show.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s hard choosing a favorite Avenger and characters like Thor make it so. He’s got this flared ego about him that should be annoying but it’s somehow both endearing and funny. In one scene, the guy slams a coffee mug down in the middle of a diner because he demands “Another!” cup of the delicious drink. When love interest Jane Foster (Thor) tells him he could have just simply asked for more, he innocently shrugs it off like that was the only way he knew. It’s hilariously believable and one of many scenes that crack you up.
I’ve talked about Thor a lot, but the movie is packed with a number of other characters that make the film spin successfully. I loved Loki’s character arc and his internal struggles. He terribly wants the throne, but there are moments (albeit brief) where you can see him struggling with the things he is doing. Loki and Thor definitely had more depth to their characters than I expected.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
It hasn’t been too long since I watched the movie, but I am already starting to forget some of the things that have happened and it’s honestly blending a bit with the second (which was terrible). A film like Iron Man, in comparison, has stuck with me since the first time I watched it in theaters. Thor didn’t blow me away. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t fun, however.
Pace: 8
For the most part, the movie is good about keeping you motivated with consistent conflict. When it does slow down in spots, there are some funny parts (like the scene in the diner) that help maintain the entertainment value. Less than a handful of dead spots kept this category out of the perfect realm.
Plot: 10
I had no issues with the story or found any holes. It would be easy for a movie like this to cut corners, but it allowed itself to play out organically. I appreciated the nice touch of character development for the sake of adding depth and impact.
Resolution: 5
Definitely the weakest part of the movie overall. I hate when movies purposefully leave you hanging for a sequel a la Spider-Man. The best endings are just that: They end the story and provide closure. Missed the mark here.
Overall: 83
There is a really cool part during Thor where the hero and his crew are traveling to Jotunheim, home of the frost giants. I remember having a big grin on my face then which carried me through most of the movie. I won’t call it a classic, but I will say it’s a solid addition in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that should be recognized.
Acting: 10
Although I cringe when Chris Hemsworth takes his shirt off and my wife is in the room, he plays a damn good Thor. Like Robert Downey’s Tony Stark, you can’t help but fall for Hemsworth’s charisma and how he treats the character. There is one particular moment I think he captured exceptionally well: After tearing through a number of dudes like it’s nothing, he’s staring down at his hammer which is stuck in the mud. He has this confident all-knowing smirk on his face as he prepares to lift it…and the hammer doesn’t budge. The absolute heartbreak he experiences after is definitely felt as you wanted him to succeed. There were a number of other solid performances throughout this film, but Hemsworth steals the show.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s hard choosing a favorite Avenger and characters like Thor make it so. He’s got this flared ego about him that should be annoying but it’s somehow both endearing and funny. In one scene, the guy slams a coffee mug down in the middle of a diner because he demands “Another!” cup of the delicious drink. When love interest Jane Foster (Thor) tells him he could have just simply asked for more, he innocently shrugs it off like that was the only way he knew. It’s hilariously believable and one of many scenes that crack you up.
I’ve talked about Thor a lot, but the movie is packed with a number of other characters that make the film spin successfully. I loved Loki’s character arc and his internal struggles. He terribly wants the throne, but there are moments (albeit brief) where you can see him struggling with the things he is doing. Loki and Thor definitely had more depth to their characters than I expected.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
It hasn’t been too long since I watched the movie, but I am already starting to forget some of the things that have happened and it’s honestly blending a bit with the second (which was terrible). A film like Iron Man, in comparison, has stuck with me since the first time I watched it in theaters. Thor didn’t blow me away. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t fun, however.
Pace: 8
For the most part, the movie is good about keeping you motivated with consistent conflict. When it does slow down in spots, there are some funny parts (like the scene in the diner) that help maintain the entertainment value. Less than a handful of dead spots kept this category out of the perfect realm.
Plot: 10
I had no issues with the story or found any holes. It would be easy for a movie like this to cut corners, but it allowed itself to play out organically. I appreciated the nice touch of character development for the sake of adding depth and impact.
Resolution: 5
Definitely the weakest part of the movie overall. I hate when movies purposefully leave you hanging for a sequel a la Spider-Man. The best endings are just that: They end the story and provide closure. Missed the mark here.
Overall: 83
There is a really cool part during Thor where the hero and his crew are traveling to Jotunheim, home of the frost giants. I remember having a big grin on my face then which carried me through most of the movie. I won’t call it a classic, but I will say it’s a solid addition in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that should be recognized.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Ready or Not (2019) in Movies
Sep 27, 2019
Ready or Not opens with a gleefully intense and shocking scene. It serves to give us a taste of the kind of twisted games that usually play out within the confines of huge gothic mansion owned by the eccentric Le Domas family, who made their fortune in the board game business. If you've seen the trailer, then you'll know that Ready or Not is basically just Hide and Seek, but with deathly consequences. However, this short, sharp introduction leaves you in no doubt as to just how far the Le Domas family will go in order to win the game.
Cut to a more happier time as Grace (Samara Weaving, niece of Hugo Weaving) is preparing to marry into the Le Domas dynasty. Her husband to be is Alex (Mark O'Brien), estranged son who has now returned to the family home where the ceremony will be taking place. As a foster child, Grace yearns to become part of a more permanent family and is concerned that she won't be accepted by the Le Domas clan, not helped by the cold scowl she gets from a seriously creepy looking Aunt Helene.
We rejoin Grace and Alex later that evening, now married. But Grace discovers that rather than retire to bed with her new husband, they must join the family downstairs and partake in a wedding night tradition which will see her officially becoming a Le Domas - she has to play a game. Wanting nothing more than to fit in with her new in-laws, Grace goes along with it all as patriarch Tony (Henry Czerny) explains how the tradition will play out. The game they must play is selected at random from a box that has been passed down through the generations after it was originally given to the family by mysterious benefactor, Mr. Le Bail. The wife of eldest son Daniel got Chess, the husband of daughter Emilie got Old Maid, so it really is anyone's guess what the mystery game will be! All of the siblings and their spouse's are in attendance for the game and watch on as Grace draws... Hide and Seek, the one game which results in death!
Not realising the seriousness of her choice, Tony explains to Grace that in order to win the game she must remain hidden until dawn, and she laughs it off. An old vinyl hide and seek record begins playing, giving Grace the time to go find a suitable hiding place, and she winds up climbing into a dumb waiter to hide. But, she soon gets bored and decides to go wandering around the huge house. It's not long though until she discovers that the family members have equipped themselves with shotguns, axes and crossbows... and they're not afraid to use them! Turns out, the family believe that if they don’t kill Grace by dawn, a terrible fate will befall them all.
What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, with a good dose of gore and dark humour thrown in. One minute we're holding our breath as Grace tries to quietly avoid a member of the family, the next we're cutting to the other family members, who are mostly completely incompetent - bickering between themselves or watching a YouTube crash course on how to use a crossbow! Ready or Not manages to juggle the different tones effortlessly, and brilliantly, as Grace goes from terrified scream queen in a pristine white wedding dress, to blood-soaked badass wearing a pair of old converse and brandishing a shotgun. She's the latest in a long line of great female survivors, played to perfection by Samara Weaving. If you liked 2011 movie 'You're Next', then Ready or Not reminded me of that in many ways.
The gothic setting and the suitably wonderful score by Brian Tyler (usually found providing music for MCU movies) all adds to what is a wonderfully short (95 minute), but perfectly paced, completely bonkers thrill ride.
Cut to a more happier time as Grace (Samara Weaving, niece of Hugo Weaving) is preparing to marry into the Le Domas dynasty. Her husband to be is Alex (Mark O'Brien), estranged son who has now returned to the family home where the ceremony will be taking place. As a foster child, Grace yearns to become part of a more permanent family and is concerned that she won't be accepted by the Le Domas clan, not helped by the cold scowl she gets from a seriously creepy looking Aunt Helene.
We rejoin Grace and Alex later that evening, now married. But Grace discovers that rather than retire to bed with her new husband, they must join the family downstairs and partake in a wedding night tradition which will see her officially becoming a Le Domas - she has to play a game. Wanting nothing more than to fit in with her new in-laws, Grace goes along with it all as patriarch Tony (Henry Czerny) explains how the tradition will play out. The game they must play is selected at random from a box that has been passed down through the generations after it was originally given to the family by mysterious benefactor, Mr. Le Bail. The wife of eldest son Daniel got Chess, the husband of daughter Emilie got Old Maid, so it really is anyone's guess what the mystery game will be! All of the siblings and their spouse's are in attendance for the game and watch on as Grace draws... Hide and Seek, the one game which results in death!
Not realising the seriousness of her choice, Tony explains to Grace that in order to win the game she must remain hidden until dawn, and she laughs it off. An old vinyl hide and seek record begins playing, giving Grace the time to go find a suitable hiding place, and she winds up climbing into a dumb waiter to hide. But, she soon gets bored and decides to go wandering around the huge house. It's not long though until she discovers that the family members have equipped themselves with shotguns, axes and crossbows... and they're not afraid to use them! Turns out, the family believe that if they don’t kill Grace by dawn, a terrible fate will befall them all.
What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, with a good dose of gore and dark humour thrown in. One minute we're holding our breath as Grace tries to quietly avoid a member of the family, the next we're cutting to the other family members, who are mostly completely incompetent - bickering between themselves or watching a YouTube crash course on how to use a crossbow! Ready or Not manages to juggle the different tones effortlessly, and brilliantly, as Grace goes from terrified scream queen in a pristine white wedding dress, to blood-soaked badass wearing a pair of old converse and brandishing a shotgun. She's the latest in a long line of great female survivors, played to perfection by Samara Weaving. If you liked 2011 movie 'You're Next', then Ready or Not reminded me of that in many ways.
The gothic setting and the suitably wonderful score by Brian Tyler (usually found providing music for MCU movies) all adds to what is a wonderfully short (95 minute), but perfectly paced, completely bonkers thrill ride.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Fallout (Crank, #3) in Books
Jun 6, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog at <a href="http://www.themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty Something Year Old Girl</a>).
Fallout by Ellen Hopkins is the final book in the Crank trilogy. I so wanted and expected this book to be just as great as the first two. However, this wasn't the case. It was alright, but no where near as good as Crank and Glass. Perhaps it was just because I wanted more Kristina, and she wasn't mentioned too much in this book.
Fallout follows the lives of three of Kristina's children. Hunter is the oldest at 19. He is extremely angry at his mother and can't understand why his mother abandoned him. Next is Autumn who lives with her aunt and grandfather. When the stability of her home life falls out beneath her, Autumn turns to drinking and becomes a bit of a wild child. Summer doesn't even know she has any biological siblings. She's been living in and out of foster homes her whole life for the most part. When she meets the boy who seems to love her, things start to go wrong. However, each one of them wants Kristina to acknowledge them.
The title of this book makes sense as all of Kristina's children have fallen out with her. I think it does a great job of giving you a hint about what this book will be about.
The cover of this book doesn't really do it for me. I like how the author stuck with the whole druggy looking title. However, I just didn't care for the ugly yellow background and how plain the cover looked. Perhaps that's just a personal thing as all the covers have been plain looking, but as this was told from the point of view from Kristina's children, I thought this cover would just have a different look.
The world building in Fallout is alright, but it's easy to forget which world you're in. Maybe that's just my bad memory, but I always had to remind myself which setting belonged to what character.
The pacing in this book is slower than the first two books, and is just a bit slow overall. It took me a longer time than usual to read this book because most of the time, I just had trouble getting into it. I just found myself not caring really when it came to everything in Fallout.
There's not much dialogue going on between the characters as with the first two books in the series. I thought the internal dialogue which each character was really good, and I felt like the dialogue between each individual character was appropriate for each of their age. There are a few swear words in this book so be warned if that's not your cup of tea.
I found myself not caring about the characters most of the time. I don't know if this was because I wanted more Kristina or because they weren't as well developed as Kristina. I got Autumn and Summer confused a lot of the time whilst reading since they almost seem to have the same personality. The only way I was able to tell them apart (besides it having their name printed at the top of the page when it was time for their point of view) was because of the setting, and even then it was sometimes difficult. With that said, I started off enjoying reading about Hunter as he seemed to just be a more well defined, more interesting character. About halfway through the book, I even stopped caring about him because he just became a little bit boring.
I enjoyed that Fallout was written in verse like the first two books in the series. Hopkins does a fantastic job putting words in verse and putting it into a story. I just wish this book could've been as good as the first two. Instead Fallout falls a little bit flat with the characters and the plot both leaving me feeling uncaring. Don't get me wrong, it's still an okay book, but I just think that this book didn't need to be written as not much is going on.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are interested in learning about Kristina's children since you won't be hearing much about Kristina in this book.
Fallout by Ellen Hopkins is the final book in the Crank trilogy. I so wanted and expected this book to be just as great as the first two. However, this wasn't the case. It was alright, but no where near as good as Crank and Glass. Perhaps it was just because I wanted more Kristina, and she wasn't mentioned too much in this book.
Fallout follows the lives of three of Kristina's children. Hunter is the oldest at 19. He is extremely angry at his mother and can't understand why his mother abandoned him. Next is Autumn who lives with her aunt and grandfather. When the stability of her home life falls out beneath her, Autumn turns to drinking and becomes a bit of a wild child. Summer doesn't even know she has any biological siblings. She's been living in and out of foster homes her whole life for the most part. When she meets the boy who seems to love her, things start to go wrong. However, each one of them wants Kristina to acknowledge them.
The title of this book makes sense as all of Kristina's children have fallen out with her. I think it does a great job of giving you a hint about what this book will be about.
The cover of this book doesn't really do it for me. I like how the author stuck with the whole druggy looking title. However, I just didn't care for the ugly yellow background and how plain the cover looked. Perhaps that's just a personal thing as all the covers have been plain looking, but as this was told from the point of view from Kristina's children, I thought this cover would just have a different look.
The world building in Fallout is alright, but it's easy to forget which world you're in. Maybe that's just my bad memory, but I always had to remind myself which setting belonged to what character.
The pacing in this book is slower than the first two books, and is just a bit slow overall. It took me a longer time than usual to read this book because most of the time, I just had trouble getting into it. I just found myself not caring really when it came to everything in Fallout.
There's not much dialogue going on between the characters as with the first two books in the series. I thought the internal dialogue which each character was really good, and I felt like the dialogue between each individual character was appropriate for each of their age. There are a few swear words in this book so be warned if that's not your cup of tea.
I found myself not caring about the characters most of the time. I don't know if this was because I wanted more Kristina or because they weren't as well developed as Kristina. I got Autumn and Summer confused a lot of the time whilst reading since they almost seem to have the same personality. The only way I was able to tell them apart (besides it having their name printed at the top of the page when it was time for their point of view) was because of the setting, and even then it was sometimes difficult. With that said, I started off enjoying reading about Hunter as he seemed to just be a more well defined, more interesting character. About halfway through the book, I even stopped caring about him because he just became a little bit boring.
I enjoyed that Fallout was written in verse like the first two books in the series. Hopkins does a fantastic job putting words in verse and putting it into a story. I just wish this book could've been as good as the first two. Instead Fallout falls a little bit flat with the characters and the plot both leaving me feeling uncaring. Don't get me wrong, it's still an okay book, but I just think that this book didn't need to be written as not much is going on.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are interested in learning about Kristina's children since you won't be hearing much about Kristina in this book.
Choiceworks
Education and Medical
App
The Choiceworks app is an essential learning tool for helping children complete daily routines...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Bear faced brilliance.
I never went to see “Paddington 2” at the cinema when it came out. Well, it’s a kids film isn’t it? And my grandkids I thought… well, their probably a bit too young for the long haul on this one. But – after catching up with it recently on a transatlantic flight – I’m sorry I missed it. For it is brilliant in its own way.
Having not seen the first “Paddington”, also directed by Paul King, there is a useful little flashback to the Peruvian origins of the little chap before we pitch into the plot proper. Paddington (voiced by Ben Wishaw, “Spectre“) has nicely settled down to life with The Brown’s in their London home and is a well-loved member of the community (well, well loved that is by everyone except the cranky Mr Curry (Peter Capaldi, “Dr Who“, “World War Z“). But he longs to buy his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton, “Finding Your Feet“) a special birthday present – a pop-up book of London scenes that he’s seen in a local antique shop. But for that he needs a lot of cash, and so proceeds to earn it through a variety of different jobs.
However, fading actor Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) also shows an unhealty interest in the book and, after it disappears from the shop with Paddington’s paw prints all over the scene, the poor bear finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
This is a continually inventive movie, which rockets along with truly impressive verve and panache from scene to scene. As a particular example of this, an animated walk through the pop-up book is marvellously done: a tribute to the 2D retro nature (even in those days!) of the TV animation of the 70’s that will go over the heads of younger viewers. There are plenty of slapstick scenes – notably of Paddington trying window cleaning, and his job in a barber’s shop – which will not only delight younger children but also made this 57 year old laugh out loud too! The prison sequence also delights, with a laundry blunder by the bear leading into a comical showdown with the prison’s chief poisoner, sorry, head chef played by Brendan Gleeson (“Alone in Berlin“, “Live By Night“).
Vision AND sound! Paddington with incarcerated friends, including Brendan Gleeson (centre).
The cast all seem to revel in their parts, with Hugh Bonneville (“Viceroy’s House“, “The Monuments Men“) energetic as Mr Brown and Oscar runner-up (surely!) Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water“) very chirpy as Mrs Brown. All of the residents of Windsor Gardens are a who’s who of UK film and TV, and each cameo has a lovely little tale behind it: Julie Walters (“Brooklyn“) as Mrs Bird, the Brown’s help; Sanjeev Bhaskar as Dr Jafri, forever nearly locking himself out; Miss Kitts (Jessica Hynes) and the crusty Colonel Lancaster (Ben Miller) in a ‘will they/won’t they’ potential romance. Elsewhere, Jim Broadbent (“Bridget Jones Baby“, “Eddie the Eagle“) is great as the antique store owner; Tom Conti adds both gravitas and humour as Judge Biggleswade and Richard Ayoade (“The Double“) is very funny as a forensic expert.
The Brown family: from left; Mr Brown (Hugh Bonneville); Jonathan (Samuel Joslin); Mrs Brown (Sally Hawkins); Mrs Bird (Julie Walters); and Judy Brown (Madeleine Harris).
Head and shoulders above all of them though is Hugh Grant who is just outstandingly good as the puffed-up and self-important ham-actor. His Best Supporting Actor nomination for a BAFTA was surprising, but having seen the film so very much deserved. Hang around in the end credits for his last words of the film which are cornily hilarious! One can only hope that Phoenix Buchanen returns for Paddington 3.
A career best… Hugh Grant as the devilishly slippery Phoenix Buchanan.
I would have thought that some of the scenes towards the end of the film, particularly one where Paddington seems doomed to a watery end, might be a little frightening for younger viewers. Thank heavens Sally Hawkins has gills! 🙂
Overall, this is a movie I would gladly watch again, with or without kids. In a movie landscape that is pretty devoid of good comedy, here is a movie that really did make me laugh out loud.
Having not seen the first “Paddington”, also directed by Paul King, there is a useful little flashback to the Peruvian origins of the little chap before we pitch into the plot proper. Paddington (voiced by Ben Wishaw, “Spectre“) has nicely settled down to life with The Brown’s in their London home and is a well-loved member of the community (well, well loved that is by everyone except the cranky Mr Curry (Peter Capaldi, “Dr Who“, “World War Z“). But he longs to buy his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton, “Finding Your Feet“) a special birthday present – a pop-up book of London scenes that he’s seen in a local antique shop. But for that he needs a lot of cash, and so proceeds to earn it through a variety of different jobs.
However, fading actor Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) also shows an unhealty interest in the book and, after it disappears from the shop with Paddington’s paw prints all over the scene, the poor bear finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
This is a continually inventive movie, which rockets along with truly impressive verve and panache from scene to scene. As a particular example of this, an animated walk through the pop-up book is marvellously done: a tribute to the 2D retro nature (even in those days!) of the TV animation of the 70’s that will go over the heads of younger viewers. There are plenty of slapstick scenes – notably of Paddington trying window cleaning, and his job in a barber’s shop – which will not only delight younger children but also made this 57 year old laugh out loud too! The prison sequence also delights, with a laundry blunder by the bear leading into a comical showdown with the prison’s chief poisoner, sorry, head chef played by Brendan Gleeson (“Alone in Berlin“, “Live By Night“).
Vision AND sound! Paddington with incarcerated friends, including Brendan Gleeson (centre).
The cast all seem to revel in their parts, with Hugh Bonneville (“Viceroy’s House“, “The Monuments Men“) energetic as Mr Brown and Oscar runner-up (surely!) Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water“) very chirpy as Mrs Brown. All of the residents of Windsor Gardens are a who’s who of UK film and TV, and each cameo has a lovely little tale behind it: Julie Walters (“Brooklyn“) as Mrs Bird, the Brown’s help; Sanjeev Bhaskar as Dr Jafri, forever nearly locking himself out; Miss Kitts (Jessica Hynes) and the crusty Colonel Lancaster (Ben Miller) in a ‘will they/won’t they’ potential romance. Elsewhere, Jim Broadbent (“Bridget Jones Baby“, “Eddie the Eagle“) is great as the antique store owner; Tom Conti adds both gravitas and humour as Judge Biggleswade and Richard Ayoade (“The Double“) is very funny as a forensic expert.
The Brown family: from left; Mr Brown (Hugh Bonneville); Jonathan (Samuel Joslin); Mrs Brown (Sally Hawkins); Mrs Bird (Julie Walters); and Judy Brown (Madeleine Harris).
Head and shoulders above all of them though is Hugh Grant who is just outstandingly good as the puffed-up and self-important ham-actor. His Best Supporting Actor nomination for a BAFTA was surprising, but having seen the film so very much deserved. Hang around in the end credits for his last words of the film which are cornily hilarious! One can only hope that Phoenix Buchanen returns for Paddington 3.
A career best… Hugh Grant as the devilishly slippery Phoenix Buchanan.
I would have thought that some of the scenes towards the end of the film, particularly one where Paddington seems doomed to a watery end, might be a little frightening for younger viewers. Thank heavens Sally Hawkins has gills! 🙂
Overall, this is a movie I would gladly watch again, with or without kids. In a movie landscape that is pretty devoid of good comedy, here is a movie that really did make me laugh out loud.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Ready or Not (2019) in Movies
Sep 3, 2019
Verdict: Blood Soaked Wedding
Story: Ready or Not starts on what should be Grace’s (Weaving) greatest day, her wedding day to Alex (O’Brien) which will put her into the famous gaming family Le Domas. With the wedding at Alex’s family home, she is welcomed by the likes of his brother Daniel (Brody), his father Tony (Czerny) and his mother Becky (MacDowell).
The family has an unusual tradition of playing a randomly selected game, which can be a simple game like chess, but tonight Grace selects Hide and Seek, a game which means the whole family will hunt her down before dawn, being a race for her to survive.
Thoughts on Ready or Not
Characters – Grace is a woman that was raised through the foster system, now she has met the love of her life in Alex and is hoping to be part of a family for the first time in her life. Like most people she is nervous on her wedding day, eager to impress her new family too, but nothing will prepare her for the night, where she must learn to fight to survive when her new family is hunting to capture her. Alex is the man that is going to marry Grace, he has become distant from his family, but knows the traditions that must be followed, he doesn’t give everything away to Grace, knowing it will scary her away, though he doesn’t want to get involved in everything once the game starts. Daniel is Alex’s brother, he hates being part of the family, he wants nothing to do with the game, but reluctantly agrees to play along with little to no enthusiasm, being one of the few people that will help Grace. Tony is the father of the household, he has made the family bigger that ever and wants to continue the traditions that were bought upon the family, he will do anything to make sure the tradition is upheld. We do meet other members of the family including Becky the wife of Tony, mother of the boys, her daughter Emilie alone with the spouses Fitch who will get the most laughs in the film and Charity.
Performances – Samara Weaving kills it in the leading role, first she puts up a fight, secondly, she gives us natural looking reactions to everything that is going on. Adam Brody gives us a strong performance that makes us want to be like his character in this situation. Mark O’Brien is strong, but doesn’t reach the levels of the fellow stars of the film. Henry Czerny is fun through this film, he starts welcoming, turns psychotic and soon becomes a loose cannon as things get out of control, Henry makes us want to see more from his character through this film.
Story – The story here follows a woman that is getting married, only to learn that her wedding night is going to have a twist, she must play a game with the family, with this being a extreme, hide and seek, in a battle for life. This is a story that takes the most important day in anybody’s life and turns it into a nightmare, which will see Grace needing to fight to survive against a family that will do anything to hunt her down to continue having their fame and fortune. It does show how the rich will do anything to get away with something big in their lives, even murder, while it does show us just how games can be turned into something bigger than just a board game.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film does come from the gore that we do see, both towards Grace and to other innocent victims in the game, one scene involving a hand is extremely difficult to watch. The mystery in the film does look at how the family is acting, like what will happen if they don’t win.
Settings – The film is set in one location, the giant mansion of the Le Domas, this shows how many different potential hiding spots we could see and how much she is playing on away ground.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are brutal to see, it is mostly all the injuries being inflicted through the film, as mentioned before the hand sequence is one that will make most wince.
Scene of the Movie – How to use a crossbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do get a lot of time jumps here, considering this is taking place over about seven hours.
Final Thoughts – This is an entertaining humour filled horror that will keep you on the edge of your seat seeing if Grace will make it out alive and just what will happen next.
Overall: Fun survival horror.
Story: Ready or Not starts on what should be Grace’s (Weaving) greatest day, her wedding day to Alex (O’Brien) which will put her into the famous gaming family Le Domas. With the wedding at Alex’s family home, she is welcomed by the likes of his brother Daniel (Brody), his father Tony (Czerny) and his mother Becky (MacDowell).
The family has an unusual tradition of playing a randomly selected game, which can be a simple game like chess, but tonight Grace selects Hide and Seek, a game which means the whole family will hunt her down before dawn, being a race for her to survive.
Thoughts on Ready or Not
Characters – Grace is a woman that was raised through the foster system, now she has met the love of her life in Alex and is hoping to be part of a family for the first time in her life. Like most people she is nervous on her wedding day, eager to impress her new family too, but nothing will prepare her for the night, where she must learn to fight to survive when her new family is hunting to capture her. Alex is the man that is going to marry Grace, he has become distant from his family, but knows the traditions that must be followed, he doesn’t give everything away to Grace, knowing it will scary her away, though he doesn’t want to get involved in everything once the game starts. Daniel is Alex’s brother, he hates being part of the family, he wants nothing to do with the game, but reluctantly agrees to play along with little to no enthusiasm, being one of the few people that will help Grace. Tony is the father of the household, he has made the family bigger that ever and wants to continue the traditions that were bought upon the family, he will do anything to make sure the tradition is upheld. We do meet other members of the family including Becky the wife of Tony, mother of the boys, her daughter Emilie alone with the spouses Fitch who will get the most laughs in the film and Charity.
Performances – Samara Weaving kills it in the leading role, first she puts up a fight, secondly, she gives us natural looking reactions to everything that is going on. Adam Brody gives us a strong performance that makes us want to be like his character in this situation. Mark O’Brien is strong, but doesn’t reach the levels of the fellow stars of the film. Henry Czerny is fun through this film, he starts welcoming, turns psychotic and soon becomes a loose cannon as things get out of control, Henry makes us want to see more from his character through this film.
Story – The story here follows a woman that is getting married, only to learn that her wedding night is going to have a twist, she must play a game with the family, with this being a extreme, hide and seek, in a battle for life. This is a story that takes the most important day in anybody’s life and turns it into a nightmare, which will see Grace needing to fight to survive against a family that will do anything to hunt her down to continue having their fame and fortune. It does show how the rich will do anything to get away with something big in their lives, even murder, while it does show us just how games can be turned into something bigger than just a board game.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film does come from the gore that we do see, both towards Grace and to other innocent victims in the game, one scene involving a hand is extremely difficult to watch. The mystery in the film does look at how the family is acting, like what will happen if they don’t win.
Settings – The film is set in one location, the giant mansion of the Le Domas, this shows how many different potential hiding spots we could see and how much she is playing on away ground.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are brutal to see, it is mostly all the injuries being inflicted through the film, as mentioned before the hand sequence is one that will make most wince.
Scene of the Movie – How to use a crossbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do get a lot of time jumps here, considering this is taking place over about seven hours.
Final Thoughts – This is an entertaining humour filled horror that will keep you on the edge of your seat seeing if Grace will make it out alive and just what will happen next.
Overall: Fun survival horror.
Nymphomaniac Volume II (2014)
6.3
Rate It
Movie Watch
Joe becomes annoyed with Seligman, accusing him of overlooking the severity of her lost sexuality to...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror - Season 4 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
USS Callister - 7.5
A fascinatingly geeky episode, all else aside. Not only are there references to almost every significant sci-fi meme (in the true sociological sense of the word) you can think of, but there are also many links to past and even future Black Mirror episodes. It really is a spot the clever touch piece of the ensemble. Deceptively colourful and lively, this is a dark idea – taking identity theft to the next level and using stolen DNA to replicate and then trap a person in a virtual world where you are god. Jesse Plemons takes on two personas and has never been seen to such effect as in this rare lead role for him. Nominated for 8 Emmys and winning 4, the start to season four in late 2017 was a strong one, and a real indicator that the Universe of Black Mirror is all intrinsically linked. As I say, geek heaven! Points for spotting Kirsten Dunst in an unspoken cameo…
Arkangel - 6
Notable for the first big guest director credit of one Jodie Foster. This one moves from creepy idea to hard to swallow nonsense very quickly. Returning to the idea of brain implants and using the eyes of a person as a recorder than can be manipulated, the idea of aparent using such tech to protect a child is fine on the surface. But when you go deeper, it is impossible to imagine a parent stupid enough not to see the drawbacks and dangers of it, and fantastical to imagine the child not questioning it as they get older. Apart from a memorable moment of violence that works well in the context of the story, this episode largely doesn’t really work.
Crocodile - 7
An almost unrecognisable Andrea Riseborough is the best thing about this bleak thriller type episode, often compared to Scandi-dramas like The Bridge. It starts with a haunting accidental death and cover up scenario, progressing to a breakdown manifested in two very different ways. Once again, the tech on display is a machine not unlike the Voight-Kampf of Blade Runner, which can translate memory into images. The intrigue and tension are great, and when things really kick off, we find ourselves yelling “just stop” at our screens! Trouble is, the final twist undermines it all, by crossing the line of irony and into comedy. Memorable, but not in the top ten for me.
Hang the DJ - 8.5
Now, this one I really like! The unlikely chemistry of Joe Cole and Georgina Campbell, as two guinea pigs using an intense dating app in some vague dystopia, hits the right tone from the start and keeps you gripped. The basic idea being that the app tells you how long a couple can be together, before parting, whether they want to or not. The promise of the system being that in the end there is a 99.8% chance of finding your “perfect” partner. The empathy for the leads is huge by the time it comes to the inevitable conclusion that they must rebel to escape their fate and be together. What happens next: the simplicity, yet detail of the twist is absolute genius! Leaving you with a wry smile and a very strong lasting impression. Artistically, not he strongest; in terms of pure writing, one of the very best.
Metalhead - 7
Perhaps unfairly, this episode, shot in gorgeous black and white, is the lowest rated of all Black Mirror episodes on IMDb. David Slade, the man responsible for films such as Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night directs, and it is apparent this is going to be a minimal mood piece, with standard psychological horror elements. The most obvious comparison is The Terminator, but there is more going on than that. What I like about it is the ambiguity. How we got to this place and where “home” is and who is left there, are all left to our imagination, as we watch Maxine Peake struggle to survive against a machine that will not stop. I think many reject it out of hand because it is too vague and has little in the way of a clever twist. But, as a character study it works fine. Shorter than most, at 41 minutes, perhaps even that is a push, given the simple idea, which does have short film vibes pouring out of it. I can’t say I don’t like it though…
Black Museum - 8
A fitting end to season four was the trick of paying homage to old anthology horror movies of the 70s, where artifacts that link to dark stories are collected in one place and re-told by a perhaps sinister narrator. There are plenty of clever nods to recognisable props and images from earlier episodes, as well as new stuff that may have future significance, that,even more than USS Callister, this episode is basically one big Easter egg. Letitia Wright, best known from her role in Black Panther, to date, shows star quality in a tricky part that basically requires her to listen and wait patiently until the satisfying pay-off. The three linking tales of a doctor who becomes addicted to pain via an empathy implant; a dead mother whose soul is trapped in a childs toy forever; and a murderer condemned to relive his execution over and over for the gratification of paying customers – are all captivating within themselves, and fit into the macabre tongue in cheek vibe well. Thankfully, the climax does make it all gel and make sense, and we leave the season on a high, reflecting our own sense of “justice”.
A fascinatingly geeky episode, all else aside. Not only are there references to almost every significant sci-fi meme (in the true sociological sense of the word) you can think of, but there are also many links to past and even future Black Mirror episodes. It really is a spot the clever touch piece of the ensemble. Deceptively colourful and lively, this is a dark idea – taking identity theft to the next level and using stolen DNA to replicate and then trap a person in a virtual world where you are god. Jesse Plemons takes on two personas and has never been seen to such effect as in this rare lead role for him. Nominated for 8 Emmys and winning 4, the start to season four in late 2017 was a strong one, and a real indicator that the Universe of Black Mirror is all intrinsically linked. As I say, geek heaven! Points for spotting Kirsten Dunst in an unspoken cameo…
Arkangel - 6
Notable for the first big guest director credit of one Jodie Foster. This one moves from creepy idea to hard to swallow nonsense very quickly. Returning to the idea of brain implants and using the eyes of a person as a recorder than can be manipulated, the idea of aparent using such tech to protect a child is fine on the surface. But when you go deeper, it is impossible to imagine a parent stupid enough not to see the drawbacks and dangers of it, and fantastical to imagine the child not questioning it as they get older. Apart from a memorable moment of violence that works well in the context of the story, this episode largely doesn’t really work.
Crocodile - 7
An almost unrecognisable Andrea Riseborough is the best thing about this bleak thriller type episode, often compared to Scandi-dramas like The Bridge. It starts with a haunting accidental death and cover up scenario, progressing to a breakdown manifested in two very different ways. Once again, the tech on display is a machine not unlike the Voight-Kampf of Blade Runner, which can translate memory into images. The intrigue and tension are great, and when things really kick off, we find ourselves yelling “just stop” at our screens! Trouble is, the final twist undermines it all, by crossing the line of irony and into comedy. Memorable, but not in the top ten for me.
Hang the DJ - 8.5
Now, this one I really like! The unlikely chemistry of Joe Cole and Georgina Campbell, as two guinea pigs using an intense dating app in some vague dystopia, hits the right tone from the start and keeps you gripped. The basic idea being that the app tells you how long a couple can be together, before parting, whether they want to or not. The promise of the system being that in the end there is a 99.8% chance of finding your “perfect” partner. The empathy for the leads is huge by the time it comes to the inevitable conclusion that they must rebel to escape their fate and be together. What happens next: the simplicity, yet detail of the twist is absolute genius! Leaving you with a wry smile and a very strong lasting impression. Artistically, not he strongest; in terms of pure writing, one of the very best.
Metalhead - 7
Perhaps unfairly, this episode, shot in gorgeous black and white, is the lowest rated of all Black Mirror episodes on IMDb. David Slade, the man responsible for films such as Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night directs, and it is apparent this is going to be a minimal mood piece, with standard psychological horror elements. The most obvious comparison is The Terminator, but there is more going on than that. What I like about it is the ambiguity. How we got to this place and where “home” is and who is left there, are all left to our imagination, as we watch Maxine Peake struggle to survive against a machine that will not stop. I think many reject it out of hand because it is too vague and has little in the way of a clever twist. But, as a character study it works fine. Shorter than most, at 41 minutes, perhaps even that is a push, given the simple idea, which does have short film vibes pouring out of it. I can’t say I don’t like it though…
Black Museum - 8
A fitting end to season four was the trick of paying homage to old anthology horror movies of the 70s, where artifacts that link to dark stories are collected in one place and re-told by a perhaps sinister narrator. There are plenty of clever nods to recognisable props and images from earlier episodes, as well as new stuff that may have future significance, that,even more than USS Callister, this episode is basically one big Easter egg. Letitia Wright, best known from her role in Black Panther, to date, shows star quality in a tricky part that basically requires her to listen and wait patiently until the satisfying pay-off. The three linking tales of a doctor who becomes addicted to pain via an empathy implant; a dead mother whose soul is trapped in a childs toy forever; and a murderer condemned to relive his execution over and over for the gratification of paying customers – are all captivating within themselves, and fit into the macabre tongue in cheek vibe well. Thankfully, the climax does make it all gel and make sense, and we leave the season on a high, reflecting our own sense of “justice”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated The Book of Kings in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – The Book of Kings Has a Few Gems and a Few Warts
Contains spoilers, click to show
Unlike other short story anthologies I could mention, this one wasn’t mostly horrible. Instead, the stories inside run the gamut from stupid to brilliant and from annoying to nothing special to fun and memorable. A little something for everyone, then.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.