Search
Search results
Rich, detailed, but strange narrative style at times!
I was sooo keen to read this - especially after watching the TV series, which I completely loved. For the most part, I wasn't disappointed. It's such a novel way of exploring Henry VIII's relationship with Anne Boleyn, not to mention the complex divorce proceedings that preceded it - through the eyes of Thomas Cromwell, the man partially responsible for orchestrating the whole thing.
Immediately, I was struck by Hilary Mantel's remarkable ability to capture life of that time - making it seem strangely familiar, despite the fact it was hundreds of years ago. She made it all seem so real, largely due to her richness of detail, not to mention expert knowledge of the era. The little notes of humour throughout are what really bring it to life - so often, history is treated with utmost seriousness, yet Mantel is absolutely correct - I'm sure people were cracking jokes and saying silly things in the Tudor era too!
The relationships were likewise beautifully illustrated, and the death of Cromwell's wife, genuinely moving. For me, this was one of the most impressive moments of the book, as Mantel captures grief so powerfully and yet so simply.
One thing I did find strange though - the way Mantel uses pronouns throughout the book. I pondered for ages about why it jarred on me every so often, and I think it's because the 3rd person narrative is so intimate, it almost feels like a 1st person in places. Then, when she uses 'he' again, rather than 'I', it is momentarily confusing. I found myself wondering what the book would have been like had she just told it in first person through Cromwell's eyes - my personal belief is that it might have worked better.
Also, although the richness of the detail was spectacular, there were times when I felt that it held up the narrative slightly. I appreciate her desire to capture every moment of these tumultuous historic events, but at times, I did find them a wee bit boring.
However, for the most part, I was really into this book, and loved the character of Cromwell to bits. A man from a humble background, unfailingly pragmatic and clever - fabulous stuff!
Immediately, I was struck by Hilary Mantel's remarkable ability to capture life of that time - making it seem strangely familiar, despite the fact it was hundreds of years ago. She made it all seem so real, largely due to her richness of detail, not to mention expert knowledge of the era. The little notes of humour throughout are what really bring it to life - so often, history is treated with utmost seriousness, yet Mantel is absolutely correct - I'm sure people were cracking jokes and saying silly things in the Tudor era too!
The relationships were likewise beautifully illustrated, and the death of Cromwell's wife, genuinely moving. For me, this was one of the most impressive moments of the book, as Mantel captures grief so powerfully and yet so simply.
One thing I did find strange though - the way Mantel uses pronouns throughout the book. I pondered for ages about why it jarred on me every so often, and I think it's because the 3rd person narrative is so intimate, it almost feels like a 1st person in places. Then, when she uses 'he' again, rather than 'I', it is momentarily confusing. I found myself wondering what the book would have been like had she just told it in first person through Cromwell's eyes - my personal belief is that it might have worked better.
Also, although the richness of the detail was spectacular, there were times when I felt that it held up the narrative slightly. I appreciate her desire to capture every moment of these tumultuous historic events, but at times, I did find them a wee bit boring.
However, for the most part, I was really into this book, and loved the character of Cromwell to bits. A man from a humble background, unfailingly pragmatic and clever - fabulous stuff!
Ali A (78 KP) rated Promise Boys in Books
Feb 14, 2023
Trigger Warnings: Murder, blood
After their school principal is shot and killed at Promise Prep School for Boys, J.B, Ramón, and Trey are labeled as the prime suspects. All three of them had had some kind of disagreement with their principal before he was killed and they all may have had the opportunity to have access to the murder weapon. With all three maintaining their innocence, they must band together to track down who really did it before one of them is falsely accused.
This book is told through multiple POVs, with each chapter giving you who the main focus is. A few of them are people you only hear from once, but they do give you important pieces of information. Because of the changing of the POVs, it does make the story go by quickly.
I usually have a hard time with teen male voices and them coming across as whiny to me. But this one, had not one, not two, but three separate teen male voices and I was intrigued by everyone. They were all authentic to me and each one captured my attention and got me turning pages. Which tells you something, because I did end up reading this book in one day.
There were a lot of twists and turns and I was still questioning whether or not each boy was truly innocent until we got towards the end and all was revealed. Nick Brooks did an amazing job at showing just how differently black and brown boys are treated when it comes down to being guilty or not. One of the boys gets in trouble a lot because his cousin is the leader of a gang around the neighborhood and a lot of people just assume he’s a part of them. Another boy jokes around a lot, and in a school where they’re not allowed to even smile in the hallways, he’s constantly getting in trouble.
Overall, this book is perfect for those who like thriller mysteries and who are fans of Jason Reynolds, Angie Thomas, and Holly Jackson. I can see this book getting more and more popular with the more people who read it. I can also see this making it to the big screen as well. Brooks wrote a wonderful, enhancing novel.
*Thank you Bookish First and Henry Holt and Co. for a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review
After their school principal is shot and killed at Promise Prep School for Boys, J.B, Ramón, and Trey are labeled as the prime suspects. All three of them had had some kind of disagreement with their principal before he was killed and they all may have had the opportunity to have access to the murder weapon. With all three maintaining their innocence, they must band together to track down who really did it before one of them is falsely accused.
This book is told through multiple POVs, with each chapter giving you who the main focus is. A few of them are people you only hear from once, but they do give you important pieces of information. Because of the changing of the POVs, it does make the story go by quickly.
I usually have a hard time with teen male voices and them coming across as whiny to me. But this one, had not one, not two, but three separate teen male voices and I was intrigued by everyone. They were all authentic to me and each one captured my attention and got me turning pages. Which tells you something, because I did end up reading this book in one day.
There were a lot of twists and turns and I was still questioning whether or not each boy was truly innocent until we got towards the end and all was revealed. Nick Brooks did an amazing job at showing just how differently black and brown boys are treated when it comes down to being guilty or not. One of the boys gets in trouble a lot because his cousin is the leader of a gang around the neighborhood and a lot of people just assume he’s a part of them. Another boy jokes around a lot, and in a school where they’re not allowed to even smile in the hallways, he’s constantly getting in trouble.
Overall, this book is perfect for those who like thriller mysteries and who are fans of Jason Reynolds, Angie Thomas, and Holly Jackson. I can see this book getting more and more popular with the more people who read it. I can also see this making it to the big screen as well. Brooks wrote a wonderful, enhancing novel.
*Thank you Bookish First and Henry Holt and Co. for a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review
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!!!.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Dec 14, 2018
A very enjoyable DCEU movie!
Before I begin, I just wanted to describe my feelings on the state of the DCEU up until now and hopefully this will be a good indication as to whether or not you're going to agree with me when it comes to Aquaman. So, as I'm sure most people will agree, so far the whole thing has been a bit of a disaster. A rush to try and bottle what Marvel have spent the last 10 years crafting and achieving, with just a handful of below average and inconsistently toned movies. I liked Man of Steel, and I didn't mind Batman V Superman, although I do understand why many people were disappointed. I really enjoyed Wonder Woman, and I found a lot to like within Justice League too. But as for Suicide Squad, well that one was just a ridiculous mess. And with all the uncertainty around the future of Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck in their roles as Superman and Batman, it seems DC still have a long way to go in terms of laying solid foundations for some decent universe building to rival Marvel.
So that brings us to Aquaman, probably the only other character of interest from Justice League who has yet to get his own origin/standalone movie. We got glimpses in Justice League, tastes of the underwater water world, and brief appearances from Amber Heards character Mera, so it's good to be able to expand on what has the potential to be a really strong, interesting character. And under the direction of James Wan, hopefully another welcome deviation from the dark, dull earlier DC movies that received so much criticism.
As far as origin stories go, things get off to a strong start. Lighthouse keeper Thomas Curry finds Atlantean queen Atlanna (Nicole Kidman) washed up on the rocks one day and takes her in to care for her. They fall in love, eventually giving birth to Arthur. A few years later and it's clear that Atlanna cannot stay. She returns to Atlantis, promising that she'll return to him one day, leaving Thomas to raise Arthur. When we join Arthur again, it's one year following the events of the Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf. Taking care of a bunch of hi-tech pirates who have boarded a submarine, but still finding time to return home to dad for a few beers and a laugh with the locals. He's left the world of Atlantis behind him, having been banished for being a half breed, and feeling anger at the treatment his mother received for giving birth to him. It's not long though before things all start kicking off and he had to return to life under the sea. Half brother Orm (Patrick Wilson) is looking to wage war on the surface world in retaliation for all the destruction and pollution within the seas, and begins trying to gain support from the seven kingdoms. Meanwhile, one of the pirates Aquaman encountered earlier has got his hands on some Atlantean technology, becoming Black Manta and vowing to get his revenge. During an undersea meeting with Vulko, aid to Atlanna and the man responsible for training Arthur as a child, Arthur is urged to find the lost Trident of Atlan, a magic artifact that once belonged to Atlantis’ first ruler. By wielding the trident, Arthur can reclaim his rightful place as king, hopefully uniting the worlds of land and sea.
There is a LOT going on here, and luckily for the most part, it all works relatively well. The quest for the trident is a bit like an Indiana Jones quest - Arthur and Mera have to undertake a trek across, and below, the Sahara desert, a trip to Sicily, a perilous boat trip and a journey to a hidden world deep within the ocean. The Black Manta storyline seems a bit unnecessary and annoying at times, although does provide some great action (and a setup for a sequel). The underwater scenes involving Atlantis and the other kingdoms are absolutely beautiful to look at, very detailed and imaginative, but these are the areas that unfortunately begin to let the movie down. Culminating in an epic underwater battle involving thousands of different creatures and weapons, the movie ends up as just another DCEU CGI overload.
Despite that, I actually had a lot of fun with this movie, and I particularly loved the action. Fluid, balletic fight scenes, with the viewpoint flowing above and around those involved, we follow a character as he powers through walls and roofs, pulling out to reveal and follow other characters in action, the direction of these scenes is extremely effective. Overall, this is definitely a strong step up for the DCEU and a worthy standalone movie. I just hope they can now keep this momentum going.
So that brings us to Aquaman, probably the only other character of interest from Justice League who has yet to get his own origin/standalone movie. We got glimpses in Justice League, tastes of the underwater water world, and brief appearances from Amber Heards character Mera, so it's good to be able to expand on what has the potential to be a really strong, interesting character. And under the direction of James Wan, hopefully another welcome deviation from the dark, dull earlier DC movies that received so much criticism.
As far as origin stories go, things get off to a strong start. Lighthouse keeper Thomas Curry finds Atlantean queen Atlanna (Nicole Kidman) washed up on the rocks one day and takes her in to care for her. They fall in love, eventually giving birth to Arthur. A few years later and it's clear that Atlanna cannot stay. She returns to Atlantis, promising that she'll return to him one day, leaving Thomas to raise Arthur. When we join Arthur again, it's one year following the events of the Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf. Taking care of a bunch of hi-tech pirates who have boarded a submarine, but still finding time to return home to dad for a few beers and a laugh with the locals. He's left the world of Atlantis behind him, having been banished for being a half breed, and feeling anger at the treatment his mother received for giving birth to him. It's not long though before things all start kicking off and he had to return to life under the sea. Half brother Orm (Patrick Wilson) is looking to wage war on the surface world in retaliation for all the destruction and pollution within the seas, and begins trying to gain support from the seven kingdoms. Meanwhile, one of the pirates Aquaman encountered earlier has got his hands on some Atlantean technology, becoming Black Manta and vowing to get his revenge. During an undersea meeting with Vulko, aid to Atlanna and the man responsible for training Arthur as a child, Arthur is urged to find the lost Trident of Atlan, a magic artifact that once belonged to Atlantis’ first ruler. By wielding the trident, Arthur can reclaim his rightful place as king, hopefully uniting the worlds of land and sea.
There is a LOT going on here, and luckily for the most part, it all works relatively well. The quest for the trident is a bit like an Indiana Jones quest - Arthur and Mera have to undertake a trek across, and below, the Sahara desert, a trip to Sicily, a perilous boat trip and a journey to a hidden world deep within the ocean. The Black Manta storyline seems a bit unnecessary and annoying at times, although does provide some great action (and a setup for a sequel). The underwater scenes involving Atlantis and the other kingdoms are absolutely beautiful to look at, very detailed and imaginative, but these are the areas that unfortunately begin to let the movie down. Culminating in an epic underwater battle involving thousands of different creatures and weapons, the movie ends up as just another DCEU CGI overload.
Despite that, I actually had a lot of fun with this movie, and I particularly loved the action. Fluid, balletic fight scenes, with the viewpoint flowing above and around those involved, we follow a character as he powers through walls and roofs, pulling out to reveal and follow other characters in action, the direction of these scenes is extremely effective. Overall, this is definitely a strong step up for the DCEU and a worthy standalone movie. I just hope they can now keep this momentum going.
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 Mister Roberts (1955) in Movies
Apr 10, 2020
Well Acted
A staple of Old Hollywood under the Studio System was to adapt to the film Broadway shows that were a big hit. One such hit was the 1948 WWII play MISTER ROBERTS starring Henry Fonda (who would win a Tony Award for his performance).
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
At over 4 hours it's still bloated and sprawling (1 more)
4:3 ratio is a needless gimmick
Does Lipstick on the Pig work?
In Zack Snyder’s much-discussed director’s cut of “Justice League”, Superman (Henry Cavill) is dead (post the events of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and a grieving Lois Lane (Amy Adams) can’t move on. Even Martha Kent (Diane Lane) has had the family farm repossessed. But the world is in deadly danger due to the work of Steppenwolf and his army of parademons. They are trying to reunite three ‘Mother Boxes’, previously hidden on earth. If joined and synchronized they will form ‘The Unity’, creating a gateway for Steppenwolf’s boss – Darkseid – to arrive and control the universe by invoking the “anti-life equation” (basically lockdown 3!).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Nov 13, 2018 (Updated Nov 13, 2018)
Predictable jumpscares (2 more)
Bad acting
Crappy script
Overhyped Garbage
The Haunting Of Hill House is a 2018 Netflix series directed by Mike Flanagan, who directed last year's fantastically creepy adaption of Stephen King's 'Gerald's Game'. Hill House even features some of the same cast members in Carla Gugino and Henry Thomas, whom I both really like. Before diving into it, I thought that this show was going to be tailor made for me, with a brilliant cast and the same subtle but terrifying horror that Flanagan used in Gerald's Game.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Oct 5, 2020
Better Than I Expected
Over the years, there has been "cash grab" sequels thrown out onto an unsuspecting public years after the beloved original film has settled into the warm memories of time. Films like THE TWO JAKES (sequel to CHINATOWN), THE EVENING STAR (sequel to TERMS OF ENDEARMENT) and, most notably, THE GODFATHER III (sequel to the first two, terrific GODFATHER films) all were filmed more than 10 years after the original classic and quickly died at the box office.
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Dangerous Liaison.
Wow, this one starts spectacularly well! Who’s not to love some “Thomas Crown” style titles over a French language version of “Music to watch girls by”? Brilliant!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!