Search
Search results
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated High As the Heavens in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Kate Breslin's new book is FINALLY here! I have been waiting for this day since the moment I finished Not by Sight. And I am so excited to share my review with you. Filled with raw emotion that will grip your heart, this is not a light read, but it is an AMAZING story!
"How in the midst of all this sorrow"...Can hope possibly be found?*
Kate's books continue to elicit emotions in me that I have rarely felt on such an excruciating level. Set in Belgium during WWI we live through the memories of our heroine. We walk with her through the heartache, the pain, the suffering, but also the joy. Evelyn Marche has seen her fair share of evil and sorrows, but as a nurse she is able to bring peace and comfort to those who are also suffering. Through her work, she is making a difference in more people's lives than she knows. I don't want to say TOO much about Eve's story, because I want you to read it! Be warned though...I was not even half way through and I thought I was going to puke, cry, and throw the book across the room.** THAT is how powerful Kate's words are. There were many times of laugh out loud moments, but this is a book set in a WAR ZONE.
While in the middle of reading this book, I had the opportunity to hear a WWII survivor speak. (I know, I know...different war...but a hero is a hero.) Her name is Marthe Cohn, she is 97 years old. Marthe is a French Jew who served as a spy in Nazi Germany during WWII. She was a nurse. She is a HERO. There are SO MANY PARALLELS to Eve in Marthe's story that it was kind of weird. Marthe was instrumental in bringing about the end of the war. I share this with you because I want to honor those who have served...in any war. Those who would risk their lives daily so that my family may live in peace. The heros who, without them, things could have ended so very different.
Evelyn is a strong and powerful representation of the many women who served in WWI. The heroes who cared for the wounded. The heroes that changed history one day at a time. Eve's independent spirit and tenacity has been an asset throughout the war. But living in "survival mode" can wear a person down. Will she continue fighting in her own strength or will she open her heart to God, and allow Him to carry her burdens? Although I have not seen the same horrors that Evelyn (and Marthe) were faced with, I hope that in the midst of chaos I will stand strong, be a light and do what I can to make the world a better place. To bring hope to those who have none.
*Quotation is from the song Days in the Sun found on the 2017 release of Disney's Beauty and the Beast.
** No books were harmed during the process of reading this book and writing the review.
I received a complimentary copy of High as the Heavens from Bethany House Publishers I was not required to write a positive review. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
"How in the midst of all this sorrow"...Can hope possibly be found?*
Kate's books continue to elicit emotions in me that I have rarely felt on such an excruciating level. Set in Belgium during WWI we live through the memories of our heroine. We walk with her through the heartache, the pain, the suffering, but also the joy. Evelyn Marche has seen her fair share of evil and sorrows, but as a nurse she is able to bring peace and comfort to those who are also suffering. Through her work, she is making a difference in more people's lives than she knows. I don't want to say TOO much about Eve's story, because I want you to read it! Be warned though...I was not even half way through and I thought I was going to puke, cry, and throw the book across the room.** THAT is how powerful Kate's words are. There were many times of laugh out loud moments, but this is a book set in a WAR ZONE.
While in the middle of reading this book, I had the opportunity to hear a WWII survivor speak. (I know, I know...different war...but a hero is a hero.) Her name is Marthe Cohn, she is 97 years old. Marthe is a French Jew who served as a spy in Nazi Germany during WWII. She was a nurse. She is a HERO. There are SO MANY PARALLELS to Eve in Marthe's story that it was kind of weird. Marthe was instrumental in bringing about the end of the war. I share this with you because I want to honor those who have served...in any war. Those who would risk their lives daily so that my family may live in peace. The heros who, without them, things could have ended so very different.
Evelyn is a strong and powerful representation of the many women who served in WWI. The heroes who cared for the wounded. The heroes that changed history one day at a time. Eve's independent spirit and tenacity has been an asset throughout the war. But living in "survival mode" can wear a person down. Will she continue fighting in her own strength or will she open her heart to God, and allow Him to carry her burdens? Although I have not seen the same horrors that Evelyn (and Marthe) were faced with, I hope that in the midst of chaos I will stand strong, be a light and do what I can to make the world a better place. To bring hope to those who have none.
*Quotation is from the song Days in the Sun found on the 2017 release of Disney's Beauty and the Beast.
** No books were harmed during the process of reading this book and writing the review.
I received a complimentary copy of High as the Heavens from Bethany House Publishers I was not required to write a positive review. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Verdict: Another King Fighting Film
Story: The King starts as the war between the English and the Scots continues to rage on, King Henry IV (Mendlesohn) is getting tired of the bloodshed and disloyalty being found in his own soldiers and with his health getting worse he recalls his son Hal (Chalamet) to his side.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated As Above So Below (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The film “As above so below” is part horror, part treasure adventure, and
all shaky cam. This found-footage film could also be more aptly titled as
“Lara Croft goes to hell.” The story centers around an excitable young
adventurer with a British accent named Scarlett on a search for the
mythological Philosopher’s Stone. A self-professed scholar of alchemy, she
hopes proving that the stone exists will fulfill her father’s legacy and
prove to the world that he wasn’t crazy. This search leads her and her
partners through the secret areas of the haunted catacombs of Pairs, France
into what could be hell itself. The movie starts with her traveling to Iran
for clues on the location of the Philosopher’s Stone.
The action opens without introductions which I enjoyed, as it gets right
into the action and sets the a good pace for the rest of the film. After
retrieving clues to the location of the stone and narrowly avoiding
security and a cave-in in Iran, our heroine sets off to Paris, France to
gather the rest of the crew for her adventure (the rest of our films
characters). These characters include her old friend Benji, a translator, a
group of French miscreants: Papillion (the leader), Zed and Souxie (the
Banshee, no kidding) all of whom are experts on the secret underground
catacombs. Her loyal documentarian George rounds out the crew who has
followed her around since the film’s opening shot.
Up until this point, the horror element of this film is non-existent. Once
the crew journey into the secret catacombs is when things begin to get
eerie. Plot and circumstance is good and all, but it’s a horror movie, is
it scary? Well, I wasn’t scared at all, neither was my wife whom I saw the
movie with. I’d call it more of a psychological thriller, a slight one at
that. Lots of supernatural happenings occur in the caverns akin to what
you’d find in a haunted house movie. Things like phone’s ringing
inexplicably in an area devoid of electricity and hundreds of feet below
the ground, spooky ghost like figures chanting occult hymns, and dead
drowned children. There isn’t much gore in this film, the little found is
reserved for the last 3rd of the movie. Some fear and wince inducing
moments are supplied via claustrophobia as the group squeezes themselves
through tight corridors and underwater channels. They did a pretty good job
of getting your heart racing. These scenes were reminiscent of a greater
horror entry “The Descent.” If you’ve seen that film, then you know what to
expect when it comes to the 1st person moments of claustrophobia.
Once in the catacombs what follows is a maze of twists and turns and
strange occurrences as the crew tries to solve the mystery of the hidden
Philosopher’s Stone as one by one the crew members get killed off in their
attempt to escape the demonic maze of underground tunnels. As for the
ending? Well prepare to be underwhelmed. The definitive worst part of the
film is its ending. It is so mundane and handled extremely poorly as to
come to an abrupt and seemingly rushed finish without any sense of
accomplishment or endearment to any of the characters or what they have
been through. Although they don’t all make it out alive (naturally this is
a horror film) those that do give off the impression of a group that has
just passed out of the end of a haunted house maze similar to those at the
upcoming Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios.
all shaky cam. This found-footage film could also be more aptly titled as
“Lara Croft goes to hell.” The story centers around an excitable young
adventurer with a British accent named Scarlett on a search for the
mythological Philosopher’s Stone. A self-professed scholar of alchemy, she
hopes proving that the stone exists will fulfill her father’s legacy and
prove to the world that he wasn’t crazy. This search leads her and her
partners through the secret areas of the haunted catacombs of Pairs, France
into what could be hell itself. The movie starts with her traveling to Iran
for clues on the location of the Philosopher’s Stone.
The action opens without introductions which I enjoyed, as it gets right
into the action and sets the a good pace for the rest of the film. After
retrieving clues to the location of the stone and narrowly avoiding
security and a cave-in in Iran, our heroine sets off to Paris, France to
gather the rest of the crew for her adventure (the rest of our films
characters). These characters include her old friend Benji, a translator, a
group of French miscreants: Papillion (the leader), Zed and Souxie (the
Banshee, no kidding) all of whom are experts on the secret underground
catacombs. Her loyal documentarian George rounds out the crew who has
followed her around since the film’s opening shot.
Up until this point, the horror element of this film is non-existent. Once
the crew journey into the secret catacombs is when things begin to get
eerie. Plot and circumstance is good and all, but it’s a horror movie, is
it scary? Well, I wasn’t scared at all, neither was my wife whom I saw the
movie with. I’d call it more of a psychological thriller, a slight one at
that. Lots of supernatural happenings occur in the caverns akin to what
you’d find in a haunted house movie. Things like phone’s ringing
inexplicably in an area devoid of electricity and hundreds of feet below
the ground, spooky ghost like figures chanting occult hymns, and dead
drowned children. There isn’t much gore in this film, the little found is
reserved for the last 3rd of the movie. Some fear and wince inducing
moments are supplied via claustrophobia as the group squeezes themselves
through tight corridors and underwater channels. They did a pretty good job
of getting your heart racing. These scenes were reminiscent of a greater
horror entry “The Descent.” If you’ve seen that film, then you know what to
expect when it comes to the 1st person moments of claustrophobia.
Once in the catacombs what follows is a maze of twists and turns and
strange occurrences as the crew tries to solve the mystery of the hidden
Philosopher’s Stone as one by one the crew members get killed off in their
attempt to escape the demonic maze of underground tunnels. As for the
ending? Well prepare to be underwhelmed. The definitive worst part of the
film is its ending. It is so mundane and handled extremely poorly as to
come to an abrupt and seemingly rushed finish without any sense of
accomplishment or endearment to any of the characters or what they have
been through. Although they don’t all make it out alive (naturally this is
a horror film) those that do give off the impression of a group that has
just passed out of the end of a haunted house maze similar to those at the
upcoming Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ghosts of War (2020) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
The ending is worth it
Ghosts of War follows a group of American soldiers as they make their way to take up post at a French chateau towards the end of the Second World War, and encounter much more than they bargained for in this slightly above average B movie.
Right from the start, this opens with your usual cliched group of soldiers that you’d find in any war film. Brenton Thwaites is Chris, the boss and leader, you have Skylar Astin as Eugene, the brains/intellectual, Kyle Gallner as the odd and trouble sniper Tappert, Alan Ritchson as a typical macho man and finally Theo Rossi as the filler. So far, so generic, and other than Tappert who gets a decent bit of creepy character development later on, the rest of the main group are virtually one dimensional. Which is a shame as the cast are a decent group of actors that have been let down by the poor writing. Although I did enjoy Billy Zane popping up with a intentionally cheesy blink and you’ll miss it cameo as a Nazi with horrific German accent.
The film begins like your typical war movie; a group of soldiers working their way across country to reach their destination. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. However what helps lift this is a rather moving and poignant opening quote, and a score that accompanies this very well. The score in this would be at home on any dramatic war film, and almost seems out of place in a horror film. It gives this a feeling that it’s a lot more epic and grand than it actually turns out to be.
What really drags this film down is when the group arrive at the aforementioned chateau and begin to experience all of the supernatural going’s on. Aside from a a couple of potentially creepy scenes, the jump scares are tired and predictable and the ghosts look like every other spook that’s been in a modern day horror film recently. It reeks of a below average, typical ghost film with some hit and miss special effects (albeit with an respectable amount of blood and gore) and had it continued on like this, it would’ve been completely forgettable. However throughout the scenes in the chateau there are hints that there is something deeper and more sinister going on, and it starts to pick up again when the group encounter a party of Nazi soldiers trying to enter the building. Things start to get a little weird and confusing and then a big reveal in the last 20 minutes completely shifts this film into something you never expected. I didn’t see this particular twist coming and for me, this made this movie more than just a sub par horror film. The reveal has been met with mixed reviews from critics and reviews alike, but I think it injects some much needed enjoyment and intrigue – it’s just a shame we have to wait over an hour to get there. The entire twist and ending is rather disturbing and also quite moving and emotional, and the final scene, whilst one we’ve seen done many times before, did make this a satisfying and darkly entertaining end.
Ghosts of War starts off as a below average clichéd war horror film, however it you can get through the first hour, the ending packs a decent, enjoyable and rather surprising punch. It’s just a shame the first two acts don’t match up to the ending.
Right from the start, this opens with your usual cliched group of soldiers that you’d find in any war film. Brenton Thwaites is Chris, the boss and leader, you have Skylar Astin as Eugene, the brains/intellectual, Kyle Gallner as the odd and trouble sniper Tappert, Alan Ritchson as a typical macho man and finally Theo Rossi as the filler. So far, so generic, and other than Tappert who gets a decent bit of creepy character development later on, the rest of the main group are virtually one dimensional. Which is a shame as the cast are a decent group of actors that have been let down by the poor writing. Although I did enjoy Billy Zane popping up with a intentionally cheesy blink and you’ll miss it cameo as a Nazi with horrific German accent.
The film begins like your typical war movie; a group of soldiers working their way across country to reach their destination. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. However what helps lift this is a rather moving and poignant opening quote, and a score that accompanies this very well. The score in this would be at home on any dramatic war film, and almost seems out of place in a horror film. It gives this a feeling that it’s a lot more epic and grand than it actually turns out to be.
What really drags this film down is when the group arrive at the aforementioned chateau and begin to experience all of the supernatural going’s on. Aside from a a couple of potentially creepy scenes, the jump scares are tired and predictable and the ghosts look like every other spook that’s been in a modern day horror film recently. It reeks of a below average, typical ghost film with some hit and miss special effects (albeit with an respectable amount of blood and gore) and had it continued on like this, it would’ve been completely forgettable. However throughout the scenes in the chateau there are hints that there is something deeper and more sinister going on, and it starts to pick up again when the group encounter a party of Nazi soldiers trying to enter the building. Things start to get a little weird and confusing and then a big reveal in the last 20 minutes completely shifts this film into something you never expected. I didn’t see this particular twist coming and for me, this made this movie more than just a sub par horror film. The reveal has been met with mixed reviews from critics and reviews alike, but I think it injects some much needed enjoyment and intrigue – it’s just a shame we have to wait over an hour to get there. The entire twist and ending is rather disturbing and also quite moving and emotional, and the final scene, whilst one we’ve seen done many times before, did make this a satisfying and darkly entertaining end.
Ghosts of War starts off as a below average clichéd war horror film, however it you can get through the first hour, the ending packs a decent, enjoyable and rather surprising punch. It’s just a shame the first two acts don’t match up to the ending.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Untouchables (1987) in Movies
Dec 16, 2020 (Updated Dec 16, 2020)
A little melodramatic
(not) Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Untouchables
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
As the Nazi’s sweep through Europe at the beginning of World War II the British face the difficult issue of replacing their Prime Minister. The people and members of Parliament have become disenchanted with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup). They feel his lack of action lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. He agrees to step down and has to name a replacement. While he would prefer to have his protégé, Foreign Secretary Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane), there is only one member of his party that all of Parliament will accept, Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman). King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn) is also opposed to the brash and opinionated Churchill. Bowing to the will of the opposition Churchill the King agrees to appoint him the next Prime Minister. Although he is thrilled at finally achieving his lifelong dream he has no delusions that he is facing extremely difficult times ahead. The Nazis are tearing through Europe. They have already taken Belgium and Holland they now are invading France. The Nazis have also managed to surround nearly the entire British ground force on the French beaches with no way home. Not only does he have to worry about foreign foes but also his numerous political enemies in his own party. Many oppose his brash and unpredictable nature, while others think of him as heavy drinker that is no more than an exceptional orator with little capacity to make hard decisions. He must overcome all of this to protect the English people and prepare them for the tough days ahead.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Ready-Made Thief in Books
Aug 15, 2017
Narrative flow (2 more)
Wonderful ode to Duchamp
Intense story premise makes it hard to put down
Plot felt a little weak with many aspects that are just plain illogical (1 more)
Science conspiracy was quite frankly boring
A love letter to Marcel Duchamp
Well this book is certainly interesting, so much so that I still don’t fully know what to make of it. The Readymade Thief is a love letter to Marcel Duchamp, a French-American artist that became famous in the early twentieth century for his influence on conceptual art. He is most famous for his readymades, manufactured pieces that he turned into art. His stance on what constituted art is an idea that could be applied to the novel.
“An ordinary object elevated to the dignity of a work of art by the mere choice of an artist.”
It’s art if the artist says that it is art. There are connections if that’s what you want to see. Duchamp’s life and work are threaded throughout the story, even some very small references that are easy to miss, and this was actually pretty awesome. The study of Duchamp’s work I think made for an interesting aspect of the story, and I liked the ideas about the fanatical secret society and the dark sort of humor to the plot.
I have to commend Augustus Rose for his skill in creating a narrative flow that was so easy to take in. For the first half of the book Lee appears lost, like she’s treading water. It had a dream-like feel to it as Lee drifts in and out of different events. As the story goes on and the mystery starts to unravel Lee finds herself completely immersed. This steady shift in tone is reflected beautifully in both the pacing and the prose, from a drug-fueled haze to cold sobriety.
So why do I feel so undecided about this book? The devil is in the plot itself, which to me felt like it had too many holes and not well developed enough at points. Most of the Crystal Castle plot feels like it was thrown out of the window and I found it underwhelming. Then there was Tomi, the hacker. If there is one thing that is difficult to write about hackers and the deep web. I won’t go into many details about it due to spoilers, but there were a lot of pieces of this portion of the plot that was just plain illogical and almost pointless. I even checked with a friend of mine that is a student in cyber security to be sure. Frankly the deep web is almost romanticized in the book when it really shouldn’t be.
Also while I know that convenience was important for creating the dreamy flow that I mentioned earlier, a lot of things seemed a little bit too convenient to be believable a lot of the time. A good portion of the plot was easy to predict, but I was still compelled to read because I wanted to know more of the why than the what.
This book was a pretty cool read overall if you can get over the hangups that I had. It is the type of book that will leave you feeling confused right along with the main character throughout the entire book. All in all it was a mixed bag of mostly good things. It’s definitely an experience and worth the read in the very least to appreciate the tone and the feel of the writing which was really great. It’s the type of story I could easily see adapted to a television drama that I would watch in a heartbeat.
“An ordinary object elevated to the dignity of a work of art by the mere choice of an artist.”
It’s art if the artist says that it is art. There are connections if that’s what you want to see. Duchamp’s life and work are threaded throughout the story, even some very small references that are easy to miss, and this was actually pretty awesome. The study of Duchamp’s work I think made for an interesting aspect of the story, and I liked the ideas about the fanatical secret society and the dark sort of humor to the plot.
I have to commend Augustus Rose for his skill in creating a narrative flow that was so easy to take in. For the first half of the book Lee appears lost, like she’s treading water. It had a dream-like feel to it as Lee drifts in and out of different events. As the story goes on and the mystery starts to unravel Lee finds herself completely immersed. This steady shift in tone is reflected beautifully in both the pacing and the prose, from a drug-fueled haze to cold sobriety.
So why do I feel so undecided about this book? The devil is in the plot itself, which to me felt like it had too many holes and not well developed enough at points. Most of the Crystal Castle plot feels like it was thrown out of the window and I found it underwhelming. Then there was Tomi, the hacker. If there is one thing that is difficult to write about hackers and the deep web. I won’t go into many details about it due to spoilers, but there were a lot of pieces of this portion of the plot that was just plain illogical and almost pointless. I even checked with a friend of mine that is a student in cyber security to be sure. Frankly the deep web is almost romanticized in the book when it really shouldn’t be.
Also while I know that convenience was important for creating the dreamy flow that I mentioned earlier, a lot of things seemed a little bit too convenient to be believable a lot of the time. A good portion of the plot was easy to predict, but I was still compelled to read because I wanted to know more of the why than the what.
This book was a pretty cool read overall if you can get over the hangups that I had. It is the type of book that will leave you feeling confused right along with the main character throughout the entire book. All in all it was a mixed bag of mostly good things. It’s definitely an experience and worth the read in the very least to appreciate the tone and the feel of the writing which was really great. It’s the type of story I could easily see adapted to a television drama that I would watch in a heartbeat.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Motion of Puppets in Books
May 16, 2018
In Keith Donohue's modern retelling of Orpheus and Eurydice, The Motion of Puppets, we're introduced to a range of characters from a besotted husband and his missing wife, to an emotionally unstable puppet girl as the husband embarks on a journey to save his wife from eternity as a doll. For fans of mythology, this sounds like a great read and it is, without a doubt, beautifully written; however, when it comes to execution, the story fell flat.
Theo and Kay Harper are newlyweds with a ten year age difference between them. A teacher at a local college, Theo takes an summer vacation away from New York with his wife, Kay, as she performs with a cirque in Quebec City. While she works, he translates a book from French to English, and everything appears to be fine. That is, until Kay suddenly disappears one night after going out with her fellow actors for dinner and drinks. Woven with necromancy, animated puppets, and many references to the madness of Alice in Wonderland, Donohue's story could be considered riveting, and perhaps I would gladly label it so if I had not been so profoundly bored while reading it.
The book's plot is, in and of itself, highly intriguing. As a fan of horror and having proclaimed a love for anything necromantic in nature, the idea of people becoming puppets, or even dying and being reanimated in any fashion really, is something apt to catch my attention, and for that reason and my love of ancient mythology, I requested an advanced reader's copy of The Motion of Puppets. My frustration with it came mostly in the fact that I felt like the book progressed too slowly and there seemed to be a lot of extra "fluff" added in. For instance, the snippets regarding Theo's translation of Eadweard Muybridge's biography really felt a bit unnecessary. There was no real correlation between Muybridge and the book itself, save to provide Theo with something on which to focus. That, also, didn't feel necessary, as Theo seems to be a rather detached character, despite his very clear obsession with his wife. Even Kay's point of view seems to be a bit overly deluded, considering her time as a puppet is significantly shorter than that of the other puppets around her and yet she seems almost as aloof as they are by the conclusion of the book.
In addition to moving at a bit of a slow pace, The Motion of Puppets also seems to rely a bit more on Alice in Wonderland-like elements than it does mythos or current happenings. Everything seems weird and ridiculous, and little, if anything, makes any sense. If you try to make sense of it, chances are you'll find yourself lost, which I found myself giving up on halfway through the book. Magic is clearly alluded to as being the cause for the current state of the majority of the cast's existence; however, it is hardly mentioned and never really explained. Clearly there's enough oddness going on that the nearly-faceless bad guys worry about being found out, but even that isn't enough of a reason to delve into the why or how: it simply is.
There is no doubt in my mind that Keith Donohue is an excellent writer; he has a beautiful command of language that quite literally takes my breath away. Though The Motion of Puppets failed to satisfy me as a reader, I will likely read more of his work when I have the time. As for the genre of this book, horror probably isn't the right one. It'd be better suited in fantasy. There's nothing scary here.
Thank you to Macmillan-Picador, NetGalley, and the author for providing me with an advanced reader's copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Theo and Kay Harper are newlyweds with a ten year age difference between them. A teacher at a local college, Theo takes an summer vacation away from New York with his wife, Kay, as she performs with a cirque in Quebec City. While she works, he translates a book from French to English, and everything appears to be fine. That is, until Kay suddenly disappears one night after going out with her fellow actors for dinner and drinks. Woven with necromancy, animated puppets, and many references to the madness of Alice in Wonderland, Donohue's story could be considered riveting, and perhaps I would gladly label it so if I had not been so profoundly bored while reading it.
The book's plot is, in and of itself, highly intriguing. As a fan of horror and having proclaimed a love for anything necromantic in nature, the idea of people becoming puppets, or even dying and being reanimated in any fashion really, is something apt to catch my attention, and for that reason and my love of ancient mythology, I requested an advanced reader's copy of The Motion of Puppets. My frustration with it came mostly in the fact that I felt like the book progressed too slowly and there seemed to be a lot of extra "fluff" added in. For instance, the snippets regarding Theo's translation of Eadweard Muybridge's biography really felt a bit unnecessary. There was no real correlation between Muybridge and the book itself, save to provide Theo with something on which to focus. That, also, didn't feel necessary, as Theo seems to be a rather detached character, despite his very clear obsession with his wife. Even Kay's point of view seems to be a bit overly deluded, considering her time as a puppet is significantly shorter than that of the other puppets around her and yet she seems almost as aloof as they are by the conclusion of the book.
In addition to moving at a bit of a slow pace, The Motion of Puppets also seems to rely a bit more on Alice in Wonderland-like elements than it does mythos or current happenings. Everything seems weird and ridiculous, and little, if anything, makes any sense. If you try to make sense of it, chances are you'll find yourself lost, which I found myself giving up on halfway through the book. Magic is clearly alluded to as being the cause for the current state of the majority of the cast's existence; however, it is hardly mentioned and never really explained. Clearly there's enough oddness going on that the nearly-faceless bad guys worry about being found out, but even that isn't enough of a reason to delve into the why or how: it simply is.
There is no doubt in my mind that Keith Donohue is an excellent writer; he has a beautiful command of language that quite literally takes my breath away. Though The Motion of Puppets failed to satisfy me as a reader, I will likely read more of his work when I have the time. As for the genre of this book, horror probably isn't the right one. It'd be better suited in fantasy. There's nothing scary here.
Thank you to Macmillan-Picador, NetGalley, and the author for providing me with an advanced reader's copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.