Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 1922 starts as Wilfred James (Jane) is about to lose part of his property to his wife Arlette (Parker), Wilfred doesn’t want to lose the farmland he has raised his son Henry (Schmid) on and wants to come up with a way to keep all the land.
Wilfred’s plan is to get his son to help him murder Arlette, to get the financial gain of taking ownership of the property. The guilt of what he did only ends up driving Wilfred crazy here as the mental state start to unfold.
Thoughts on 1922
Characters – Wilfred is a farmer and father that doesn’t want to leave his farm, he designs a plan to get that as he looks to stay but soon his mind starts slipping into insanity. Arlette is the wife that wants to move away but has to overcome the husband’s decision not to, only to find herself murdered and visiting him in ghost form. Henry is the son that helps with the cover up, but soon goes out on his own to learn the harsh reality of the world.
Performances – Thomas Jane does give us a good performance in this film, but the rest of the cast are just ok, none of the performances drag us into the film in any way to see where it will end up going.
Story – The story was hard to follow, I think the idea is that one man loses everything because of killing his wife, the problem is that this is an incredibly slow-moving film that doesn’t seem to go very far or have any redeemable qualities. Is gets caught in the middle of a breakdown and a supernatural movie without being set on one that could make either feel stronger.
Crime/Horror/Mystery – There was a crime as it leads to a cover up of a murder which leads to the horror involved in the story as the past comes to haunt Wilfred.
Settings – The settings do fit the time in question which is fine but nothing stands out as the best of the best.
Special Effects – The effects are good when used but the film doesn’t just turn to effects to make things happen.
Scene of the Movie – Final Scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It was so so so so slow.
Final Thoughts – Well this is one of the dullest movies of the year, it has nothing happening for the most part and for a Stephen King spin it only disappoints.
Overall: Boring is being polite.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/10/24/1922-2017/
Wilfred’s plan is to get his son to help him murder Arlette, to get the financial gain of taking ownership of the property. The guilt of what he did only ends up driving Wilfred crazy here as the mental state start to unfold.
Thoughts on 1922
Characters – Wilfred is a farmer and father that doesn’t want to leave his farm, he designs a plan to get that as he looks to stay but soon his mind starts slipping into insanity. Arlette is the wife that wants to move away but has to overcome the husband’s decision not to, only to find herself murdered and visiting him in ghost form. Henry is the son that helps with the cover up, but soon goes out on his own to learn the harsh reality of the world.
Performances – Thomas Jane does give us a good performance in this film, but the rest of the cast are just ok, none of the performances drag us into the film in any way to see where it will end up going.
Story – The story was hard to follow, I think the idea is that one man loses everything because of killing his wife, the problem is that this is an incredibly slow-moving film that doesn’t seem to go very far or have any redeemable qualities. Is gets caught in the middle of a breakdown and a supernatural movie without being set on one that could make either feel stronger.
Crime/Horror/Mystery – There was a crime as it leads to a cover up of a murder which leads to the horror involved in the story as the past comes to haunt Wilfred.
Settings – The settings do fit the time in question which is fine but nothing stands out as the best of the best.
Special Effects – The effects are good when used but the film doesn’t just turn to effects to make things happen.
Scene of the Movie – Final Scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It was so so so so slow.
Final Thoughts – Well this is one of the dullest movies of the year, it has nothing happening for the most part and for a Stephen King spin it only disappoints.
Overall: Boring is being polite.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/10/24/1922-2017/
RavenclawPrincess913 (253 KP) rated A Multitude of Dreams in Books
Sep 10, 2023
Favorite book of this year
Title: A Multitude of dreams
Author: Mara Rutherford
My favorite read of the year would be A Multitude of Dreams by Mara Rutherford. In the beginning of this book it takes place during the after math of a horrible plague called the Mori Roja which basically causes the patient to bleed out and die. Only ways people can survive the mori Roja are to die and be reborn, never come in contact with the plague or be immune.
Princess Imogen of Goslind has been locked in the palace with many other higher born citizens for the past four years during the plague she wants to be set free same with many others but the king will not allow that. After Nico impersonating a prince shows up they quickly learn being locked up is what helped them survive so long but it is no longer possible when the food runs out.
When Nico realizes that Lord Crane is a reborn and learns of his plans he decided to impersonate a prince who died on his way to meet the princess for a marriage agreement. He died by a reborn. He does this to try to warn and save the people of the palace but he has no success when Lord Crane and other reborns invade the palace killing many.
This being the best book I read of 2023 I am having a hard time choosing just one part I loved the most in it. I did enjoy that Princess Giselle got the karma that was coming for her it was one hundred percent deserved. The story was really well written and extremely hard to put down. Another part I loved were all the moments between Jocelyn and Princess Imogen. Honestly only part of this book I disliked was that Jocelyn and Imogen didn't end up together. I thought they would because they were giving off more that friend vibes with the kisses and stuff.
When it comes to the characters my favorites were Jocelyn and Princess Imogen. I loved them from the beginning. One character who gave bad vibes and I knew couldn't be trust was Lord Crane. I could just tell there was something up with him. On the other hand Nico and Colin were both very trustworthy from the beginning. I didn't like Giselle, Henry or Branson either. Princess Giselle I could tell she was a backstabber. Henry I could tell he had an alternative motive and couldn't be trusted. Same with Branson. This book had a very good character development.
I recommend reading this if books based during or after a plague interests you. I also recommend if you enjoy books about vampires.
Author: Mara Rutherford
My favorite read of the year would be A Multitude of Dreams by Mara Rutherford. In the beginning of this book it takes place during the after math of a horrible plague called the Mori Roja which basically causes the patient to bleed out and die. Only ways people can survive the mori Roja are to die and be reborn, never come in contact with the plague or be immune.
Princess Imogen of Goslind has been locked in the palace with many other higher born citizens for the past four years during the plague she wants to be set free same with many others but the king will not allow that. After Nico impersonating a prince shows up they quickly learn being locked up is what helped them survive so long but it is no longer possible when the food runs out.
When Nico realizes that Lord Crane is a reborn and learns of his plans he decided to impersonate a prince who died on his way to meet the princess for a marriage agreement. He died by a reborn. He does this to try to warn and save the people of the palace but he has no success when Lord Crane and other reborns invade the palace killing many.
This being the best book I read of 2023 I am having a hard time choosing just one part I loved the most in it. I did enjoy that Princess Giselle got the karma that was coming for her it was one hundred percent deserved. The story was really well written and extremely hard to put down. Another part I loved were all the moments between Jocelyn and Princess Imogen. Honestly only part of this book I disliked was that Jocelyn and Imogen didn't end up together. I thought they would because they were giving off more that friend vibes with the kisses and stuff.
When it comes to the characters my favorites were Jocelyn and Princess Imogen. I loved them from the beginning. One character who gave bad vibes and I knew couldn't be trust was Lord Crane. I could just tell there was something up with him. On the other hand Nico and Colin were both very trustworthy from the beginning. I didn't like Giselle, Henry or Branson either. Princess Giselle I could tell she was a backstabber. Henry I could tell he had an alternative motive and couldn't be trusted. Same with Branson. This book had a very good character development.
I recommend reading this if books based during or after a plague interests you. I also recommend if you enjoy books about vampires.
Deborah (162 KP) rated Richard III: The King in the Car Park in Books
Dec 21, 2018
I quote from the final page of this publication: "The writer of this book will face similar virulent criticism. It will be savaged in the book reviews on Amazon, mainly by non-readers, to take its ratings and thus popularity down." In fact, this is the last, but by no means the only rant by the author who appears to have a definite chip on his shoulder for some reason. Since he subjects Thomas Penn's work, 'The Winter King' to such virulent criticism, one can only suspect that he was turned down by Penn's publisher. One can hardly be surprised. I have read this book, despite wanting on a number of occasions to give up in disgust. It is full of errors of spelling (e.g. youngest for younger, now instead of not), so has evidently not had either a proof reader or an editor. There are also many factual errors with names and titles becoming hopelessly confused. On one page we're told that Sir James Tyrell was hanged and a couple of pages later we're told that Henry Tudor was so kind as to merely condescend to cut his head off!
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
JT (287 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Guy Richie back to doing what he does best (1 more)
Excellent cast
Twists, turns and carnage
Since Snatch Guy Richie hasn’t covered himself in glory with some of his recent films. The likes of Swept Away, Revolver and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword did little to enhance his street cred.
While Sherlock Holmes and The Man From U.N.C.L.E were certainly enjoyable romps they didn’t have the cutting edge to what Richie does best, the gangster flick. Thankfully The Gentlemen provides everything you could want from that genre and Richie is back on familiar ground.
Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is looking to retire from his current criminal life and plans to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London. However, when rival gangs get wind of his plans there is blackmail, bribery and double-crossing aplenty.
One of the stars of the film is Hugh Grant, who for once is not playing a bumbling English gentry. Instead, he plays a slimy cockney called Fletcher with inside knowledge of what Mickey’s plans are and attempts to use them for his own financial gain.
Grant adds a subtle level of humour to the proceedings and spends most of the time in dialogue with Ray (Charlie Hunnam) Mickey’s right-hand man, who actually delivers a half-decent performance.
The Gentlemen has Richie’s aggressive dialogue which is bathed in neat action set pieces. It’s foul-mouthed and the characters all have their own unique and very distinct personalities. From Colin Farrell’s Coach to Henry Golding’s psychotic Dry Eye they can stand happily alongside some of the greats from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.
The film has a cool swagger about it where everything clicks nicely. There are a few twists and turns along the way which is expected from the British director and it is filled with his trademarks that hit the right notes at the right time. For me, this is by far and away his best film for quite some time.
While Sherlock Holmes and The Man From U.N.C.L.E were certainly enjoyable romps they didn’t have the cutting edge to what Richie does best, the gangster flick. Thankfully The Gentlemen provides everything you could want from that genre and Richie is back on familiar ground.
Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is looking to retire from his current criminal life and plans to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London. However, when rival gangs get wind of his plans there is blackmail, bribery and double-crossing aplenty.
One of the stars of the film is Hugh Grant, who for once is not playing a bumbling English gentry. Instead, he plays a slimy cockney called Fletcher with inside knowledge of what Mickey’s plans are and attempts to use them for his own financial gain.
Grant adds a subtle level of humour to the proceedings and spends most of the time in dialogue with Ray (Charlie Hunnam) Mickey’s right-hand man, who actually delivers a half-decent performance.
The Gentlemen has Richie’s aggressive dialogue which is bathed in neat action set pieces. It’s foul-mouthed and the characters all have their own unique and very distinct personalities. From Colin Farrell’s Coach to Henry Golding’s psychotic Dry Eye they can stand happily alongside some of the greats from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.
The film has a cool swagger about it where everything clicks nicely. There are a few twists and turns along the way which is expected from the British director and it is filled with his trademarks that hit the right notes at the right time. For me, this is by far and away his best film for quite some time.
This isn’t the first time I’ve read this book, and it probably won’t be the last, either. I’m reading the first two books in preparation for reading the final book. Wolf Hall is as good as it was the first time round, and I think it’s a book that bears reading more than once - I’ve picked up things this time that I didn’t see the first read through. I have a sneaking suspicion that you could find something new, no matter how many times you read it.
It can be a little confusing at first, when Cromwell is referred to as ‘he’ throughout, but I slipped into the habit after a while. When learning about the Tudors at school, Cromwell is very much skimmed over. We learn that he had his moment of favour and then had his head chopped off 🤷🏼♀️. It seemed to be a bit of a professional hazard if you worked with royalty in those days.
This book gives Thomas Cromwell personality, feelings and you get to see his hopes and aspirations. He is portrayed as a thoroughly nice person, a good, caring father and employer. Someone who fought his way out of poverty, and tried to bring others out of that same situation. But he’s also shown to be calculating, cunning, a man that is no fool. There would have to be an element of the cut-throat about a man who wanted to work with Henry VIII; a king who was unpredictable, to say the least, and easily influenced by those around him.
I adore this period in history. Nothing is as shocking as real life, and I cannot for the life of me get over how cheap life was in a time where it should have been worth more (with no antibiotics, high infant and maternal mortality, death around the corner from simple illnesses). I’m really looking forward to rereading the second book in this trilogy now.
It can be a little confusing at first, when Cromwell is referred to as ‘he’ throughout, but I slipped into the habit after a while. When learning about the Tudors at school, Cromwell is very much skimmed over. We learn that he had his moment of favour and then had his head chopped off 🤷🏼♀️. It seemed to be a bit of a professional hazard if you worked with royalty in those days.
This book gives Thomas Cromwell personality, feelings and you get to see his hopes and aspirations. He is portrayed as a thoroughly nice person, a good, caring father and employer. Someone who fought his way out of poverty, and tried to bring others out of that same situation. But he’s also shown to be calculating, cunning, a man that is no fool. There would have to be an element of the cut-throat about a man who wanted to work with Henry VIII; a king who was unpredictable, to say the least, and easily influenced by those around him.
I adore this period in history. Nothing is as shocking as real life, and I cannot for the life of me get over how cheap life was in a time where it should have been worth more (with no antibiotics, high infant and maternal mortality, death around the corner from simple illnesses). I’m really looking forward to rereading the second book in this trilogy now.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
Solid Performances (1 more)
Believable Set Design
Sometimes Your Own Demons Are The Hardest To Escape
1922 is the second Stephen King story adapted for Netflix in the last two months and it is very different to the adaption of Gerald's Game we saw back in September. The movie is set up nicely, showing an older, shaken man writing out his confession in hopes of appeasing the guilt that has plagued him since he murdered his wife Arlette. We then see a younger version of the man, Wilfred and we learn that he is very protective of the three things that he feels, 'belong,' to him; his son, his wife and his land.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Clever and Inventive
Ever since he burst onto the film scene with back-to-back interesting British Mob movies LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS and SNATCH, Director Guy Ritchie has had a "hit and miss" track record (including the Madonna-starring, Razzie-Award "winner" SWEPT AWAY). Fortunately, for us, we seem to be in a Guy Ritchie "peak" a this moment.
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
1972: Billie Jean King (played brilliantly by Emma Stone) just became the Grand Slam Champion of the Women’s Tennis Association. She had challenged the inequity of pay between the Men’s and Women’s Tennis Tour. Once she learns that the tournament for the Lawn Tennis Association is paying Women one eighth of the Men’s purse. She goes up against Jack Kramer (Bill Pullman at his misogynistic best). Billie, with her Manager, Gladys Heldman (Sarah Silverman in spectacular form echoing a more subdued version of Bobbie Fleckman) leave the LTA and start their own Women’s Tour. Which became the Virginia Slims tournament.
Around the same time, Bobby (Steve Carell, playing Riggs like a manic Pagliacci) the once Pro Slam Champion who now works in a nondescript office at his father-in-law’s business. Bobby, the dreamer, is a gambler figuratively and literally. The man who’s inner child has taken the reins on the run. He is the clown who needs constant attention, and the showman who could sell the Golden Gate. Carell, gives an exceptional performance, riling us up with cringe-worthy moments and showing us the man that is so certain of his abilities that he forgets the fable of the tortoise and the hare.
We are brought into relationships that these two athletes have with their families and loved ones. Of what they went through before the epic, world famous Battle of the Sexes in the Houston Astrodome. The film serves us a picture of the time where women had recently began the feminine movement and Women’s Liberation. The entire feel of the movie is set solidly in the seventies, the sexism rampant and accepted as the status quo. Misogyny is socially acceptable and Riggs and friends epitomize the attitude.
There is also the story of Billie Jean, realizing an attraction to a woman she meets before the starting her tour. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough was magnetic), the hairdresser that was instantly drawn to Billie. We also get the treat of seeing the magnificent Alan Cumming as Ted, the charming designer of the women’s fantastic tennis outfits. Wallace Langham as Henry, the tailor.
The story is built up to the historic Battle of the Sexes at the Astrodome. We see the work that Billie does in preparation. Daily drills and practice games. Bobby’s confidence in his ability to deliver a win that mirrored the decimation of Margaret Court (Jessica McNamee) who at the time was the top female tennis player in the world.
The directing duo of Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (Little Miss Sunshine) delivers us a well balanced, heartfelt film with a stellar cast. The soundtrack brings us into the early seventies and the costuming is quantum leap back to the time where polyester leisure suits and colorful shirts were the height of fashion. This is a love story of Billie Jean King and Tennis
Around the same time, Bobby (Steve Carell, playing Riggs like a manic Pagliacci) the once Pro Slam Champion who now works in a nondescript office at his father-in-law’s business. Bobby, the dreamer, is a gambler figuratively and literally. The man who’s inner child has taken the reins on the run. He is the clown who needs constant attention, and the showman who could sell the Golden Gate. Carell, gives an exceptional performance, riling us up with cringe-worthy moments and showing us the man that is so certain of his abilities that he forgets the fable of the tortoise and the hare.
We are brought into relationships that these two athletes have with their families and loved ones. Of what they went through before the epic, world famous Battle of the Sexes in the Houston Astrodome. The film serves us a picture of the time where women had recently began the feminine movement and Women’s Liberation. The entire feel of the movie is set solidly in the seventies, the sexism rampant and accepted as the status quo. Misogyny is socially acceptable and Riggs and friends epitomize the attitude.
There is also the story of Billie Jean, realizing an attraction to a woman she meets before the starting her tour. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough was magnetic), the hairdresser that was instantly drawn to Billie. We also get the treat of seeing the magnificent Alan Cumming as Ted, the charming designer of the women’s fantastic tennis outfits. Wallace Langham as Henry, the tailor.
The story is built up to the historic Battle of the Sexes at the Astrodome. We see the work that Billie does in preparation. Daily drills and practice games. Bobby’s confidence in his ability to deliver a win that mirrored the decimation of Margaret Court (Jessica McNamee) who at the time was the top female tennis player in the world.
The directing duo of Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (Little Miss Sunshine) delivers us a well balanced, heartfelt film with a stellar cast. The soundtrack brings us into the early seventies and the costuming is quantum leap back to the time where polyester leisure suits and colorful shirts were the height of fashion. This is a love story of Billie Jean King and Tennis
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Boleyn Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Going into <b>The Other Boleyn Girl</b> I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
After the big budget train wreck that was King Arthur: Legend of the Sword in 2017, and the big budget Disney remake of Aladdin last year, Guy Ritchie has returned to the comedy gangster roots where he made his name more than two decades ago. It’s the kind of movie that I’m not really a fan of if I’m honest, and I didn’t even like the look of the trailer for The Gentlemen either, but I gave it a shot. I’m glad I did.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
