Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Papillon (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Henry “Papillon” Charriere (Charlie Hunnam) is a safecracker making his name in the Parisian underworld. But when he decides to keep some diamonds from a big score to himself his luck changes. He is framed for a murder and given a life sentence. Even worse for Papillon is that he is being shipped to the Devil’s Island penal colony in French Giana. With no chance at an appeal his only chance at freedom is to escape. On the long boat ride from France to South America he finds an unlikely ally in the form of the forger Louis Dega (Rami Malek). The slight and awkward Dega does not want to escape but rather just survive long enough to have his appeal heard. Papillon agrees to protect Dega in exchange for financing any escape plan Papillon can devise. With Dega’s financial backing Papillon now only has to figure out how to escape from prison no one has been known to escape from on an island surrounded by rivers and ocean, unforgiving jungle and guards who shoot to kill.
Papillon is based on a true story and adapted from the novels “Papillon” and “Banco” written by Charriere himself. This is the second film adaptation of these novels. The other film, also Papillon, is from 1973 stared Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. I have not seen the 1973 version but I did enjoy the story and could be worth viewing to get another directors vision.
The 2018 version is powered but a captivating story of survival and the unlikely friendship of two men thrust together in a harsh environment. Both Hunnam (King Arthur, Pacific Rim) and Malek (Mr. Robot – TV Series, Night at the Museum) give excellent performances. The rest of the cast is okay but these two stars give great performances. Danish director Michael Noer (R, Northwest) does a decent job in the telling of the story visually. There was blood in one scene that was a pink colored and did not look anything like blood and that was a little distracting. The prison seemed realistic and grimy, but also weirdly bright.
Overall I enjoyed this film. I didn’t have any expectations going in and was pleasantly surprised but interesting story. At 2 hours and 13 minutes it does seem a bit too long. This would be a film I would enjoy watching at home and not necessarily something I would spend theater money on.
Papillon is based on a true story and adapted from the novels “Papillon” and “Banco” written by Charriere himself. This is the second film adaptation of these novels. The other film, also Papillon, is from 1973 stared Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. I have not seen the 1973 version but I did enjoy the story and could be worth viewing to get another directors vision.
The 2018 version is powered but a captivating story of survival and the unlikely friendship of two men thrust together in a harsh environment. Both Hunnam (King Arthur, Pacific Rim) and Malek (Mr. Robot – TV Series, Night at the Museum) give excellent performances. The rest of the cast is okay but these two stars give great performances. Danish director Michael Noer (R, Northwest) does a decent job in the telling of the story visually. There was blood in one scene that was a pink colored and did not look anything like blood and that was a little distracting. The prison seemed realistic and grimy, but also weirdly bright.
Overall I enjoyed this film. I didn’t have any expectations going in and was pleasantly surprised but interesting story. At 2 hours and 13 minutes it does seem a bit too long. This would be a film I would enjoy watching at home and not necessarily something I would spend theater money on.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020
Ritchie back on form
It's about time Guy Ritchie went back to what he does best. After the terrible Aladdin and King Arthur over the past couple of years, and the ok but not great Man from UNCLE and Sherlock Holmes films, Ritchie really needs something good. And whilst for me this didn't quite meet the high expectations set by Snatch and Lock, Stock, it's by far the best thing he's done since 2000's Snatch.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bullet Train (2022) in Movies
Aug 6, 2022
I first got an extended look at “Bullet Train” during Cinemacon when a reel of the film was shown during the Sony showcase to an enthusiastic crowd. The footage mixed action and humor with quirky and dysfunctional characters and became a must-see film for me based on the teased footage.
The film is based on a book by Kotaro Isaka and stars Brad Pitt as an operative named Ladybug. He is called at the last minute as a replacement and given instructions to board a Bullet Train and snatch a case in one of the passenger areas before exiting at the next station.
Having gone through a recent crisis, Ladybug is awash in various philosophical and new age ideas as he attempts to find his inner peace and a new path in life, as such he does not take a gun with him when he boards despite being instructed to do so by his handler.
The train is filled with various killers and dangerous people who are there to accomplish various goals and most of whom fail frequently in violent and hysterical manners which further complicate their agendas as well as that of the others and often puts them into conflict with one another as the story unfolds.
It would be difficult to go into further detail on the various characters without spoiling some of the reveals and twists along the way but suffice it to say that Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry as Tangerine and Lemon are great and their banter, as well as capers, is a frequent highlight.
There are some surprise cameos in the film which add to the fun and Joey King is as great as perhaps one of the more complicated characters in the film. Pitt is clearly the star but the film allows him as well as his supporting cast plenty of moments to shine and the humor flies fast and frequent as does the action which creates a very engaging and stylistic hybrid of western and Asian cinema.
The film does drag slightly late before leading to the finale but thanks to the great cast and action it comes through in the end.
Director David Leitch has worked on films such as “Deadpool 2”, “Atomic Blonde”, and “John Wick: and you can see that he has a knack for directing action and comedy as this is a very fun and engaging film that has some great action and humor and one that you will not want to miss.
4 stars out of 5.
The film is based on a book by Kotaro Isaka and stars Brad Pitt as an operative named Ladybug. He is called at the last minute as a replacement and given instructions to board a Bullet Train and snatch a case in one of the passenger areas before exiting at the next station.
Having gone through a recent crisis, Ladybug is awash in various philosophical and new age ideas as he attempts to find his inner peace and a new path in life, as such he does not take a gun with him when he boards despite being instructed to do so by his handler.
The train is filled with various killers and dangerous people who are there to accomplish various goals and most of whom fail frequently in violent and hysterical manners which further complicate their agendas as well as that of the others and often puts them into conflict with one another as the story unfolds.
It would be difficult to go into further detail on the various characters without spoiling some of the reveals and twists along the way but suffice it to say that Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry as Tangerine and Lemon are great and their banter, as well as capers, is a frequent highlight.
There are some surprise cameos in the film which add to the fun and Joey King is as great as perhaps one of the more complicated characters in the film. Pitt is clearly the star but the film allows him as well as his supporting cast plenty of moments to shine and the humor flies fast and frequent as does the action which creates a very engaging and stylistic hybrid of western and Asian cinema.
The film does drag slightly late before leading to the finale but thanks to the great cast and action it comes through in the end.
Director David Leitch has worked on films such as “Deadpool 2”, “Atomic Blonde”, and “John Wick: and you can see that he has a knack for directing action and comedy as this is a very fun and engaging film that has some great action and humor and one that you will not want to miss.
4 stars out of 5.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) in Movies
Apr 29, 2021
Monsters! Yay! Small screen... booooooo!
Godzilla and Kong come head to head in a vicious battle as the humans embark on a mission to discover the ultimate power source.
I won't harp on this point too much because we're nearly at the point where I won't have to... hopefully... but this needs the big screen. You need that experience to get the full effect.
Monsters fight... do we need any story? I didn't. Which is just as well because I wouldn't be able to tell you what specifically happened apart from what I wrote in the synopsis.
You could have had this film without the humans, or as a human focus film with the monsters just lurking in the background of the whole thing. (Though I don't think anyone would care about the latter.) The monsters could easily have done a film without the humans, there's only actually one point where they're needed, and that was quite frankly dubious.
Let's talk about those humans, but where to start? The film needed to commit to either being a companion to the last film or being a new film in the franchise. So far all the others have been quite independent of each other in comparison. It may not be a popular opinion, but I would have opted for a new film... and that means no Millie Bobby Brown and no Kyle Chandler (who was quite frankly underused anyway).
My definite highlight was Brian Tyree Henry in his role as the conspiracy podcaster, and I really enjoyed that whole thread. But it definitely could have been switched up a bit and resulted in a much more believable discovery sequence in the plot. That was quite a big thing in the film, when giant monster events are more believable than human ones, you need to rethink what you're doing.
As much as I love Alexander Skarsgård, I cannot tell you much of anything about his role. He's usually always an enjoyable actor, but even that couldn't save this bland character. So much so, that when I listened to a podcast on this film and they mentioned him, I went "oh yeah, he was in it".
My main take away was that most characters had very little development, and I know I was there for the monsters, but the humans needed to not be throwaways for the amount of time they spent on screen.
I'm not going to go into the effects, they were great, and I loved them just as much as in King of the Monsters. The colours were amazing.
I'm very pleased I didn't spot spoilers for the film before seeing it. The reveals were well done and I enjoyed some of the moments that came from them, but it leads me to something I've been pondering...
This sequence of films feels wrong, Had Godzilla vs. Kong been before King of the Monsters then you'd have been presented with the perfect way to introduce more creatures, but the character dynamics would not have been right with that shuffle. There are so many possibilities, that going over them would take way too long.
For a title that highlights Godzilla before Kong, it's oddly weighted, Kong is a much bigger feature than G-zee is. He gets his own personality and a bit more heart, and it was nice to see him become a new person... ape... giant fuzzball. I can't help but be a little sad that one of his moments from the original wasn't duplicated in all its glory here.
Overall it's a fun creature feature and the action is epic as expected, with some twists thrown in if you managed to avoid the spoilers. While I really do love moments from Godzilla vs. Kong, I'm not sure it's better than KotM, but it's well worth the watch either way.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review.html
Godzilla and Kong come head to head in a vicious battle as the humans embark on a mission to discover the ultimate power source.
I won't harp on this point too much because we're nearly at the point where I won't have to... hopefully... but this needs the big screen. You need that experience to get the full effect.
Monsters fight... do we need any story? I didn't. Which is just as well because I wouldn't be able to tell you what specifically happened apart from what I wrote in the synopsis.
You could have had this film without the humans, or as a human focus film with the monsters just lurking in the background of the whole thing. (Though I don't think anyone would care about the latter.) The monsters could easily have done a film without the humans, there's only actually one point where they're needed, and that was quite frankly dubious.
Let's talk about those humans, but where to start? The film needed to commit to either being a companion to the last film or being a new film in the franchise. So far all the others have been quite independent of each other in comparison. It may not be a popular opinion, but I would have opted for a new film... and that means no Millie Bobby Brown and no Kyle Chandler (who was quite frankly underused anyway).
My definite highlight was Brian Tyree Henry in his role as the conspiracy podcaster, and I really enjoyed that whole thread. But it definitely could have been switched up a bit and resulted in a much more believable discovery sequence in the plot. That was quite a big thing in the film, when giant monster events are more believable than human ones, you need to rethink what you're doing.
As much as I love Alexander Skarsgård, I cannot tell you much of anything about his role. He's usually always an enjoyable actor, but even that couldn't save this bland character. So much so, that when I listened to a podcast on this film and they mentioned him, I went "oh yeah, he was in it".
My main take away was that most characters had very little development, and I know I was there for the monsters, but the humans needed to not be throwaways for the amount of time they spent on screen.
I'm not going to go into the effects, they were great, and I loved them just as much as in King of the Monsters. The colours were amazing.
I'm very pleased I didn't spot spoilers for the film before seeing it. The reveals were well done and I enjoyed some of the moments that came from them, but it leads me to something I've been pondering...
This sequence of films feels wrong, Had Godzilla vs. Kong been before King of the Monsters then you'd have been presented with the perfect way to introduce more creatures, but the character dynamics would not have been right with that shuffle. There are so many possibilities, that going over them would take way too long.
For a title that highlights Godzilla before Kong, it's oddly weighted, Kong is a much bigger feature than G-zee is. He gets his own personality and a bit more heart, and it was nice to see him become a new person... ape... giant fuzzball. I can't help but be a little sad that one of his moments from the original wasn't duplicated in all its glory here.
Overall it's a fun creature feature and the action is epic as expected, with some twists thrown in if you managed to avoid the spoilers. While I really do love moments from Godzilla vs. Kong, I'm not sure it's better than KotM, but it's well worth the watch either way.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Wreck-It-Ralph (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In this modern age of console, p.c., and mobile video games it’s easy to forget the days of my youth when the video arcade was king. This is not to say that we didn’t have gaming systems of our own but an Atari 2600 and PlayStation 3 are about as similar as one of Henry Ford’s model T’s to a fully loaded Mercedes.
Suffice it to say I remember very clearly when video games were only a quarter, and how timeless classics ranging from Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, and countless other arcade treasures became cultural icons as well as school yard conversation topics in the pre-Internet days.
Walt Disney Studios have crafted an amazing visual spectacle that combines numerous references to gaming greats old and new with their new movie “Wreck-it Ralph”. The film stars John C. Reilly as Ralph, the villain of a very popular arcade game called Fix it Felix. When the arcade closes for the evening Felix Jr. (Jack McBrayer), and the other residents the game enjoy carefree life of companionship and socialization while Ralph is relegated to a pile of bricks in the town dump and forced to watch the frivolity enjoyed by his workmates from a distance.
His only relief comes when he travels to a central gaming hub and enjoys the company of other gaming villains in a support group. During one such group, Ralph drops the shocking revelation that he wishes to become a hero. Not only does this disclosure shock his fellow gaming villains but the cast of his game, one of whom taunts Ralph to go off and win a hero’s medal elsewhere.
Undaunted, Ralph sets off and finds himself in a brand-new 3-D shooter called Heroes Duty. It is here that Jack meets Sgt. Calhoun (Jane Lynch), a grizzled and bitter veteran who’s been programmed to have the most tragic back story ever developed for gaming persona. Despite his bumbling actions, Ralph achieves his medal and plans to returns to his own game in triumph. Unfortunately in the time that he is been away, the arcade owner believes that his game is defective since Ralph is missing from it and labels the game out of order.
This is a terrible situation especially for older game, as once a game is un-plugged, all of the characters contained within are lost forever. On his way back to his game, Ralph finds himself in a colorfully festooned sugar and treat filled racing game as he attempts to retrieve his medal and set things right unaware that an even bigger threat is looming that threatens all the game characters in the arcade.
Assisting Ralph is Vanellope von Schweetz, (Sarah Silverman), who is an impish glitch that Ralph views as a kindred spirit as she is also ostracized by her fellow game cast. With the gigantic race looming, and the loony King Candy (Alan Tudyk), making things difficult Ralph must rise up and become more than he ever thought he could be to save the day.
The 3-D animation the film the spectacular but what really makes the movie is fine performances by Riley, Lynch, and Silverman, as well as the amazing supporting work by Tudyk, McBrayer, and the rest of the cast. The jokes are extremely clever and come at you at a fairly steady pace. The film was nearly 2 hours in length so parents be warned that this and the PG rating might make things a little harder than usual for extremely young viewers.
There were several fantastic jokes that clearly went over the heads of many of the younger viewers during our test screening as they were geared at those who grew up with arcades and the original Nintendo console.
The film did have a few pacing issues but they were minor and did not as a whole take away from my overall enjoyment of the film. While it falls just short of being considered a modern classic, the movie is definitely one of the more enjoyable films of the year and one that I hope spawns several follow-ups as it was pure Disney magic and gaming nostalgia blended to perfection.
Suffice it to say I remember very clearly when video games were only a quarter, and how timeless classics ranging from Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, and countless other arcade treasures became cultural icons as well as school yard conversation topics in the pre-Internet days.
Walt Disney Studios have crafted an amazing visual spectacle that combines numerous references to gaming greats old and new with their new movie “Wreck-it Ralph”. The film stars John C. Reilly as Ralph, the villain of a very popular arcade game called Fix it Felix. When the arcade closes for the evening Felix Jr. (Jack McBrayer), and the other residents the game enjoy carefree life of companionship and socialization while Ralph is relegated to a pile of bricks in the town dump and forced to watch the frivolity enjoyed by his workmates from a distance.
His only relief comes when he travels to a central gaming hub and enjoys the company of other gaming villains in a support group. During one such group, Ralph drops the shocking revelation that he wishes to become a hero. Not only does this disclosure shock his fellow gaming villains but the cast of his game, one of whom taunts Ralph to go off and win a hero’s medal elsewhere.
Undaunted, Ralph sets off and finds himself in a brand-new 3-D shooter called Heroes Duty. It is here that Jack meets Sgt. Calhoun (Jane Lynch), a grizzled and bitter veteran who’s been programmed to have the most tragic back story ever developed for gaming persona. Despite his bumbling actions, Ralph achieves his medal and plans to returns to his own game in triumph. Unfortunately in the time that he is been away, the arcade owner believes that his game is defective since Ralph is missing from it and labels the game out of order.
This is a terrible situation especially for older game, as once a game is un-plugged, all of the characters contained within are lost forever. On his way back to his game, Ralph finds himself in a colorfully festooned sugar and treat filled racing game as he attempts to retrieve his medal and set things right unaware that an even bigger threat is looming that threatens all the game characters in the arcade.
Assisting Ralph is Vanellope von Schweetz, (Sarah Silverman), who is an impish glitch that Ralph views as a kindred spirit as she is also ostracized by her fellow game cast. With the gigantic race looming, and the loony King Candy (Alan Tudyk), making things difficult Ralph must rise up and become more than he ever thought he could be to save the day.
The 3-D animation the film the spectacular but what really makes the movie is fine performances by Riley, Lynch, and Silverman, as well as the amazing supporting work by Tudyk, McBrayer, and the rest of the cast. The jokes are extremely clever and come at you at a fairly steady pace. The film was nearly 2 hours in length so parents be warned that this and the PG rating might make things a little harder than usual for extremely young viewers.
There were several fantastic jokes that clearly went over the heads of many of the younger viewers during our test screening as they were geared at those who grew up with arcades and the original Nintendo console.
The film did have a few pacing issues but they were minor and did not as a whole take away from my overall enjoyment of the film. While it falls just short of being considered a modern classic, the movie is definitely one of the more enjoyable films of the year and one that I hope spawns several follow-ups as it was pure Disney magic and gaming nostalgia blended to perfection.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Dracula was written by author Bram Stoker during the late 1890's and is set around the character of Dracula and his attempt to move from Transylvania to England so he can spread the curse of the undead (I.e. the creation of more vampires). English solicitor Jonathan Harker who'd originally gone to Transylvania to be legal aide for Dracula stops him with the help of Van Helsing and others which ends the life of one of them – Quincey-, the book ends with a note from Jonathan Harker that several people lived happily married and Jonathan has a son nicknamed for Quincey.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bullet Train (2022) in Movies
Aug 10, 2022
Ultra-Violent...and a TON of Fun!
Early conversations surrounding the new Brad Pitt action flick BULLET TRAIN label this film as “Ultra-Violent”.
They say this as if it is a bad thing.
Directed by David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2) with a screenplay by Zak Olkewicz (FEAR STREET: PART TWO) and based on the book Kotaro Isaka, BULLET TRAIN is (no arguing here) an Ultra-Violent action flick in every sense of the term, set on the famed titular Japanese Bullet Train and follows an operative by the codename Ladybug (played by Pitt who you know from such gentle fair as FIGHT CLUB and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS) who’s easy “snatch and grab” job is nothing easy thanks to the appearance of various other nefarious individuals who also are looking for that case.
Following in the footsteps of such similarily-violent flicks as NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, TRAINING DAY, FARGO and just about anything Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Director Leitch uses the violence, mayhem and bloodshed to ADD to the story (which all of the aforementioned films also did with great affect) and not “just” to be violent. And that’s an important distinction here. If the ultra-violence is fun and important to moving the story and plot along (and not just there to be gratuitous), then the movie can succeed quite well - and this one does.
What also makes these types of movies succeed is the plotting - which is sharp by writer Okewicz - and the twists and turns that you do not see coming - but make sense along the way (and will reward the viewer upon repeated viewing) and Bullet Train does this as well. It is a smartly made film that is crisply directed with some terrific action sequences (though, if I’m being fair, at times the CGI is not as good as it could/should be), but it is entertaining as all get out.
Leading us through this mayhem is the always charming and charismatic Pitt who parlays the “goofball” personae of a person in just a little over his head but comes out on top due to luck (or skill) - you be the judge. Pitt is the perfect performer for the audience to become invested in as he is the one that you need to be rooting for throughout - and you do from just about the beginning.
Leitch, wisely then, surrounded Pitt with some terrific character actors in this venture. From Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICK-ASS) to Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) to Joey King (THE CONJURING) to the always terrific Hiroyuki Sanada (MORTAL COMBAT) and a host of others who do extended cameos - and to name them would be to spoil the fun of them. They all understand what type of film they are in and all seem to be having a good time going along with it all.
And why not? Bullet Train is a delight in the cinema - for those of you who like action and violence that is pretty spectacular and over the top. It is a heckuva lotta fun.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (Out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
They say this as if it is a bad thing.
Directed by David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2) with a screenplay by Zak Olkewicz (FEAR STREET: PART TWO) and based on the book Kotaro Isaka, BULLET TRAIN is (no arguing here) an Ultra-Violent action flick in every sense of the term, set on the famed titular Japanese Bullet Train and follows an operative by the codename Ladybug (played by Pitt who you know from such gentle fair as FIGHT CLUB and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS) who’s easy “snatch and grab” job is nothing easy thanks to the appearance of various other nefarious individuals who also are looking for that case.
Following in the footsteps of such similarily-violent flicks as NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, TRAINING DAY, FARGO and just about anything Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Director Leitch uses the violence, mayhem and bloodshed to ADD to the story (which all of the aforementioned films also did with great affect) and not “just” to be violent. And that’s an important distinction here. If the ultra-violence is fun and important to moving the story and plot along (and not just there to be gratuitous), then the movie can succeed quite well - and this one does.
What also makes these types of movies succeed is the plotting - which is sharp by writer Okewicz - and the twists and turns that you do not see coming - but make sense along the way (and will reward the viewer upon repeated viewing) and Bullet Train does this as well. It is a smartly made film that is crisply directed with some terrific action sequences (though, if I’m being fair, at times the CGI is not as good as it could/should be), but it is entertaining as all get out.
Leading us through this mayhem is the always charming and charismatic Pitt who parlays the “goofball” personae of a person in just a little over his head but comes out on top due to luck (or skill) - you be the judge. Pitt is the perfect performer for the audience to become invested in as he is the one that you need to be rooting for throughout - and you do from just about the beginning.
Leitch, wisely then, surrounded Pitt with some terrific character actors in this venture. From Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICK-ASS) to Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) to Joey King (THE CONJURING) to the always terrific Hiroyuki Sanada (MORTAL COMBAT) and a host of others who do extended cameos - and to name them would be to spoil the fun of them. They all understand what type of film they are in and all seem to be having a good time going along with it all.
And why not? Bullet Train is a delight in the cinema - for those of you who like action and violence that is pretty spectacular and over the top. It is a heckuva lotta fun.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (Out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A new franchise is reborn
It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has kicked off a trend over in tinseltown. Shared franchises are all the rage at the moment, and why not. Marvel has taken over $10billion. DC has finally found its footing with Wonder Woman and Legendary are fusing Godzilla with Kong: Skull Island to create their own monster universe.
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Tournament in Books
Nov 27, 2019
Australian author Matthew Reilly is known for his fast paced, edge of your seat, suspension of belief thrillers. This book is a considerable change from that, being a slower and more thoughtful tale of 16th century murder and intrigue.
Reilly's books, under the usual all-out action sequences, always convey a good plot and storyline and have strong characterisation. Here those are to the fore. The main players are a young Princess Elizabeth; daughter of King Henry VIII and soon to be Elizabeth I and her teacher, Roger Ascham. Sultan Sulieman the Magnificent has invited all the best chess players across Europe to play to decide which nation can claim to have the ultimate chess champions. Elizabeth and Roger accompany England's entrant both to avoid the black death but also because Ascham wants to give Elizabeth a wide education just in case she becomes queen.
After a few adventures on the way the party arrives, along with the representatives of the other nations. Court intrigue and politics abound and everyone has their own agenda. When there is a high profile murder, Sulieman requests the aid of Ascham - known for his insight and ability to resolve problems using logic - to find the culprit before there is an international scandal. As the bodies pile up, Ascham and young Elizabeth face dangerous and unknown enemies and uncover plots and dark secrets.
The medieval detective story is not entirely new for Reilly. Previous he has written a couple of short stories that are available for download from his website - www.mattewreilly.com - with this theme. Dead Prince concerns the death of the Dauphin in France and is investigated by the king's architect. Roger Ascham and the King's Missing Girl is a story that precedes The Tournament by a few months and effectively introduces Ascham and his skills as he tracks down a serial kidnapper and murderer in Cambridge.
Reilly acknowledges at the end of the book that he was influenced by works such as The Name of the Rose and indeed this has much of the same flavour. The plot is complex and has the chess match running through it (and indeed sections of the book are named after chess pieces). Everything is very well handled by Reilly and everything unravels nicely in the finale of the book.
This has also been well researched. With many real historical figures included (not only Elizabeth, Ascham and Sulieman but a supporting cast that includes Ivan the Terrible and Michelangelo) and the feel of all the descriptions is very authentic.
One aspect that has to be mentioned is that, since Reilly wanted to explore something that may have influenced Elizabeth in her future life, there are a fair number of events of a sexual nature that occur. Some of these have a direct bearing on the plot, others are so that Elizabeth can form opinions on sex and marriage. Reilly has printed a warning at the start of the book that this is not for younger readers, and I can fully endorse that.
I can imagine that a number of Reilly fans will not enjoy this book - the pace is slow and methodical rather than headlong and there are very few 'action' sequences to speak of. However I would recommend this book to anybody who likes historical detective style stories.
Reilly's books, under the usual all-out action sequences, always convey a good plot and storyline and have strong characterisation. Here those are to the fore. The main players are a young Princess Elizabeth; daughter of King Henry VIII and soon to be Elizabeth I and her teacher, Roger Ascham. Sultan Sulieman the Magnificent has invited all the best chess players across Europe to play to decide which nation can claim to have the ultimate chess champions. Elizabeth and Roger accompany England's entrant both to avoid the black death but also because Ascham wants to give Elizabeth a wide education just in case she becomes queen.
After a few adventures on the way the party arrives, along with the representatives of the other nations. Court intrigue and politics abound and everyone has their own agenda. When there is a high profile murder, Sulieman requests the aid of Ascham - known for his insight and ability to resolve problems using logic - to find the culprit before there is an international scandal. As the bodies pile up, Ascham and young Elizabeth face dangerous and unknown enemies and uncover plots and dark secrets.
The medieval detective story is not entirely new for Reilly. Previous he has written a couple of short stories that are available for download from his website - www.mattewreilly.com - with this theme. Dead Prince concerns the death of the Dauphin in France and is investigated by the king's architect. Roger Ascham and the King's Missing Girl is a story that precedes The Tournament by a few months and effectively introduces Ascham and his skills as he tracks down a serial kidnapper and murderer in Cambridge.
Reilly acknowledges at the end of the book that he was influenced by works such as The Name of the Rose and indeed this has much of the same flavour. The plot is complex and has the chess match running through it (and indeed sections of the book are named after chess pieces). Everything is very well handled by Reilly and everything unravels nicely in the finale of the book.
This has also been well researched. With many real historical figures included (not only Elizabeth, Ascham and Sulieman but a supporting cast that includes Ivan the Terrible and Michelangelo) and the feel of all the descriptions is very authentic.
One aspect that has to be mentioned is that, since Reilly wanted to explore something that may have influenced Elizabeth in her future life, there are a fair number of events of a sexual nature that occur. Some of these have a direct bearing on the plot, others are so that Elizabeth can form opinions on sex and marriage. Reilly has printed a warning at the start of the book that this is not for younger readers, and I can fully endorse that.
I can imagine that a number of Reilly fans will not enjoy this book - the pace is slow and methodical rather than headlong and there are very few 'action' sequences to speak of. However I would recommend this book to anybody who likes historical detective style stories.