Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated James Acaster: Repertoire in TV
Aug 6, 2020 (Updated Aug 6, 2020)
I have been a fan of stand up comedy, erm, all my life… well, at least since Billy Connely kinda invented it, in a way that wasn’t all about hating the mother in law and homophobia. When I moved to Edinburgh in 1999, I found myself at the epicentre of new comedy, every August at the unparalleled event that is the Fringe Festival.
Over the years I have seen most of the living greats at the art live, be it a full show or a smaller set at the legendary bullpit of Late and Live. Sad exceptions being Eddie Izzard and Dylan Moran, still on the bucket list. It has given me a pretty good eye for who is gonna make it big when they start out. I saw Jack Whitehall aged 16; Jimmy Carr before anyone knew who he was; and many others that have gone on to have decent TV and touring careers.
Having moved to Glasgow in recent years I started to see less comedy. Not that The Stand and other venues don’t have it going on, but because it just feels less of a thing outside of Edinburgh. So, when James Acaster came to my old place of work, the legendary Oran Mor, I booked tickets for myself, my daughter and her boyfriend in a heartbeat.
I had seen him do a lot of Mock The Week and a few other guest spots on TV, and thought from the start that this guy had something kinda special. The main good sign being that he made me laugh! A kind of blonder Jarvis Cocker, with the dress sense to match, he has a quirky, sleepy but cross delivery that is a total winner. He is very fast with an improvised moment, is very clever in his off kilter observations, and charmingly wanders into surreal tangents whenever possible. In other words, totally up my comedy avenue.
I was delighted to see that he had a new four part special on Netflix when I was recently surfing around old comedy shows I’ve seen half a dozen times. Repertoire is consecutive shows that work either alone, or payoff better as a whole, when early jokes get a back reference in a genius fashion. To explain why they are funny is not a thing I’m about to attempt. Comedy is so subjective; if it makes you laugh then it is good, if not… it might still be good, but not for you. You have to watch it to know.
So many highlights. At least three moments that made me have to pause it because I was laughing almost too much and in danger of passing out. Generally, you get a content knowing smile out of it, patting yourself on the back for getting his multi-layered intentions. Some things are just weird or hilarious, but often there is an intelligent point being made on the sly. When the two combine, I find him one of the best around for quality of writing and delivery.
As a side note, in part 3 of Repertoire he makes reference to a recent nightmare gig, when the entire front row of a Glasgow show kicked off and threw verbal abuse at him. That was the show we were at! He handled it remarkably well, turning the final portion of the show into an improv about that, chucked the planned material away. It isn’t every stand-up that can handle hecklers that well. Total kudos, Mr Acaster.
Recommended big time.
Over the years I have seen most of the living greats at the art live, be it a full show or a smaller set at the legendary bullpit of Late and Live. Sad exceptions being Eddie Izzard and Dylan Moran, still on the bucket list. It has given me a pretty good eye for who is gonna make it big when they start out. I saw Jack Whitehall aged 16; Jimmy Carr before anyone knew who he was; and many others that have gone on to have decent TV and touring careers.
Having moved to Glasgow in recent years I started to see less comedy. Not that The Stand and other venues don’t have it going on, but because it just feels less of a thing outside of Edinburgh. So, when James Acaster came to my old place of work, the legendary Oran Mor, I booked tickets for myself, my daughter and her boyfriend in a heartbeat.
I had seen him do a lot of Mock The Week and a few other guest spots on TV, and thought from the start that this guy had something kinda special. The main good sign being that he made me laugh! A kind of blonder Jarvis Cocker, with the dress sense to match, he has a quirky, sleepy but cross delivery that is a total winner. He is very fast with an improvised moment, is very clever in his off kilter observations, and charmingly wanders into surreal tangents whenever possible. In other words, totally up my comedy avenue.
I was delighted to see that he had a new four part special on Netflix when I was recently surfing around old comedy shows I’ve seen half a dozen times. Repertoire is consecutive shows that work either alone, or payoff better as a whole, when early jokes get a back reference in a genius fashion. To explain why they are funny is not a thing I’m about to attempt. Comedy is so subjective; if it makes you laugh then it is good, if not… it might still be good, but not for you. You have to watch it to know.
So many highlights. At least three moments that made me have to pause it because I was laughing almost too much and in danger of passing out. Generally, you get a content knowing smile out of it, patting yourself on the back for getting his multi-layered intentions. Some things are just weird or hilarious, but often there is an intelligent point being made on the sly. When the two combine, I find him one of the best around for quality of writing and delivery.
As a side note, in part 3 of Repertoire he makes reference to a recent nightmare gig, when the entire front row of a Glasgow show kicked off and threw verbal abuse at him. That was the show we were at! He handled it remarkably well, turning the final portion of the show into an improv about that, chucked the planned material away. It isn’t every stand-up that can handle hecklers that well. Total kudos, Mr Acaster.
Recommended big time.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A visual spectacle
It’s always a worry when a production company feels the need to force feed you the fact that a big-name is in a relatively minor role. In the case of Alita: Battle Angel, 20th Century Fox have been hammering home the fact that James Cameron is involved in a Producer capacity.
You have to feel a little sorry for director Robert Rodriguez as his name has been almost usurped by Cameron’s in the marketing push for this live-action adaptation of the classic manga. Of course, Cameron is too busy making the four Avatar sequels no-one actually cares about anymore and instead, entrusted his vision for Alita: Battle Angel to Rodriguez. He’s certainly an intriguing choice of director, but does the finished product work?
Set several centuries in the future, the abandoned Alita (Rosa Salazar) is found in the scrapyard of Iron City by Ido (Christoph Waltz), a compassionate cyber-doctor who takes the unconscious cyborg Alita to his clinic. When Alita awakens, she has no memory of who she is, nor does she have any recognition of the world she finds herself in. As Alita learns to navigate her new life and the treacherous streets of Iron City, Ido tries to shield her from her mysterious past.
After spending nearly $200million on Alita, Fox clearly think they’ve got another massive hit on their hands and to an extent, they deserve one. Battle Angel is a majestic film, filled with visual presence not dissimilar to the spectacle of watching Avatar for the first time in 2009. The bustling world of Iron City feels as if it’s living and breathing right before our eyes and that’s a testament to both Cameron and Rodriguez as well as the visual effects people down at Weta Digital.
This thriving metropolis is populated by practical and CGI effects of varying qualities, but as a movie world, it works much better than Wakanda did in Black Panther and is leagues ahead of the empty, soulless Asgard from Thor.
It is reminiscent of Sakaar in Thor: Ragnarok however, with its narrow streets and market stalls. The difference here is that Iron City is a much darker, eerier place than Sakarr ever was, save for Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster towering above everything.
The casting is also very good and features some household names that were clearly intrigued by the project. Waltz is excellent as the compassionate Ido and Jennifer Connelly works well as his ex-wife, though she is underused throughout.
Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time.
Ed Skrein turns up every now and then as Zapan, a cyborg bounty hunter and provides some light comic relief in a film that has more than its fair share of darker moments. TV actor Keann Johnson makes his big-budget film debut here and he is excellent as Hugo, Alita’s love interest.
Unfortunately, the initial optimism fades somewhat when you realise that Alita: Battle Angel struggles under the weight of its own script. Plot points in the first 45 minutes feel ridiculously rushed and then the film hurtles towards its climax without stopping for breath.
You get the feeling there was much more that had to be cut to trim the runtime down to a more family friendly 2 hours. The dialogue too isn’t a strong point. Overly expositional and riddled in cliché, Alita is not a film you watch because of its sparkling and witty one-liners.
Niggles aside though and Alita: Battle Angel is much better than I thought it was going to be. The plot, while unoriginal, is sweet and easy enough to swallow, making it a great family film. True, it has its darker moments, but the strong visuals and vibrant environment will make it enjoyable for older children and adults alike.
Overall, Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time. It’s a flawed film that struggles to cope with its many ideas that continuously pull it in hundreds of different directions, but it’s worth a watch just for the visual spectacle and emotionally arresting story. Whether or not it recoups that colossal $200million budget remains to be seen.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/02/09/alita-battle-angel-review-a-visual-spectacle/
You have to feel a little sorry for director Robert Rodriguez as his name has been almost usurped by Cameron’s in the marketing push for this live-action adaptation of the classic manga. Of course, Cameron is too busy making the four Avatar sequels no-one actually cares about anymore and instead, entrusted his vision for Alita: Battle Angel to Rodriguez. He’s certainly an intriguing choice of director, but does the finished product work?
Set several centuries in the future, the abandoned Alita (Rosa Salazar) is found in the scrapyard of Iron City by Ido (Christoph Waltz), a compassionate cyber-doctor who takes the unconscious cyborg Alita to his clinic. When Alita awakens, she has no memory of who she is, nor does she have any recognition of the world she finds herself in. As Alita learns to navigate her new life and the treacherous streets of Iron City, Ido tries to shield her from her mysterious past.
After spending nearly $200million on Alita, Fox clearly think they’ve got another massive hit on their hands and to an extent, they deserve one. Battle Angel is a majestic film, filled with visual presence not dissimilar to the spectacle of watching Avatar for the first time in 2009. The bustling world of Iron City feels as if it’s living and breathing right before our eyes and that’s a testament to both Cameron and Rodriguez as well as the visual effects people down at Weta Digital.
This thriving metropolis is populated by practical and CGI effects of varying qualities, but as a movie world, it works much better than Wakanda did in Black Panther and is leagues ahead of the empty, soulless Asgard from Thor.
It is reminiscent of Sakaar in Thor: Ragnarok however, with its narrow streets and market stalls. The difference here is that Iron City is a much darker, eerier place than Sakarr ever was, save for Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster towering above everything.
The casting is also very good and features some household names that were clearly intrigued by the project. Waltz is excellent as the compassionate Ido and Jennifer Connelly works well as his ex-wife, though she is underused throughout.
Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time.
Ed Skrein turns up every now and then as Zapan, a cyborg bounty hunter and provides some light comic relief in a film that has more than its fair share of darker moments. TV actor Keann Johnson makes his big-budget film debut here and he is excellent as Hugo, Alita’s love interest.
Unfortunately, the initial optimism fades somewhat when you realise that Alita: Battle Angel struggles under the weight of its own script. Plot points in the first 45 minutes feel ridiculously rushed and then the film hurtles towards its climax without stopping for breath.
You get the feeling there was much more that had to be cut to trim the runtime down to a more family friendly 2 hours. The dialogue too isn’t a strong point. Overly expositional and riddled in cliché, Alita is not a film you watch because of its sparkling and witty one-liners.
Niggles aside though and Alita: Battle Angel is much better than I thought it was going to be. The plot, while unoriginal, is sweet and easy enough to swallow, making it a great family film. True, it has its darker moments, but the strong visuals and vibrant environment will make it enjoyable for older children and adults alike.
Overall, Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time. It’s a flawed film that struggles to cope with its many ideas that continuously pull it in hundreds of different directions, but it’s worth a watch just for the visual spectacle and emotionally arresting story. Whether or not it recoups that colossal $200million budget remains to be seen.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/02/09/alita-battle-angel-review-a-visual-spectacle/
Adventure and Redemption
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aeronauts (2019) in Movies
Oct 27, 2019
Firstly I'd like to address the accuracy of this film. As soon as I got out of the screening I looked up the story and it took the shine off a little. James Glaisher was indeed involved in these experiments but his companion was Henry Coxwell and not the fictional Amelia Wren. Wren is at least based on female aeronauts of the time, Sophie Blanchard and Margaret Graham, which is a slight comfort. I can of course understand why they did it, the film has a definite air of romance about it and the inclusion of a larger than life character and her backstory does give the film a boost that it might not have had on the original story.
The second thing I would also like to mention is that you need to see this in IMAX, it's been filmed for it and though that's not how I saw it I know it will be amazing.
There's a lot in The Aeronauts that makes you stop and collect your thoughts. The experience of being in the balloon is captured perfectly through shots of the city below and the vast expanses of clouds and sky... the word wonderous is the only thing that seems fitting.
I like that the story doesn't dwell on filling in the audience on history before the main event. During their flight we jump back for relevant snippets as needed and it adds to the emotion of the scenes as we return to the context. It also helps to pad out the timeline in what is almost in real-time. The record breaking flight was roughly 2.5 hours, the film runs for 1 hour 40 minutes, having watched it I don't think I'd mind seeing a 2.5 hour version.
Eddie Redmayne is high on my "nope" list when it comes to movies, I can't watch Fantastic Beasts without getting annoyed and as such I haven't gone back to watch any of his other films. In The Aeronauts though I found him to be much less of a frustrating watch, some of the mannerisms are still there but I was definitely won over by his performance. (Please do recommend your favourite films from him in the comments.) He really managed to capture the obsession for knowledge in a very natural way and I found it very engaging.
Felicity Jones as out fictional Amelia Wren makes a great show of the theatrics and transition smoothly to the seriousness needed to convey their situation once they were in flight. I thought her role was incredibly well crafted and she made every moment up in that balloon very real for the audience.
The pair work amazingly together on screen and that's not really surprising seeing as they've worked together before on The Theory Of Everything. I would say that the chemistry they'd already developed helped to make that tiny basket really come to life for the viewer.
A special shout out to Bella who played Posey the dog, I have to assume that she didn't do her own stunts but regardless it was a great performance.
I was very pleased that they didn't feel the need to fill those beautiful silences. As they soared higher into the sky I'm sure they could have filled the gap with peaceful classical music and still been impressive but the visuals are so good that they really didn't need anything.
I don't want to touch much of the second half of the film because it really does need to be seen but it certainly doesn't disappoint. Everything escalates with the ascent and from camera work to effects it all comes together for a finale that has you glued to the screen.
As you can tell I really enjoyed The Aeronauts and I'm looking forward to an Unlimited Screening of it again soon. I have one tip for you, go in your summer clothes when you see it. No, I haven't gone mad(der), it's a great way to get a free 4DX experience by sitting near the air conditioning. You'll get colder and colder as the film progresses and you'll really feel like you're in the balloon with them.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-aeronauts-movie-review.html
The second thing I would also like to mention is that you need to see this in IMAX, it's been filmed for it and though that's not how I saw it I know it will be amazing.
There's a lot in The Aeronauts that makes you stop and collect your thoughts. The experience of being in the balloon is captured perfectly through shots of the city below and the vast expanses of clouds and sky... the word wonderous is the only thing that seems fitting.
I like that the story doesn't dwell on filling in the audience on history before the main event. During their flight we jump back for relevant snippets as needed and it adds to the emotion of the scenes as we return to the context. It also helps to pad out the timeline in what is almost in real-time. The record breaking flight was roughly 2.5 hours, the film runs for 1 hour 40 minutes, having watched it I don't think I'd mind seeing a 2.5 hour version.
Eddie Redmayne is high on my "nope" list when it comes to movies, I can't watch Fantastic Beasts without getting annoyed and as such I haven't gone back to watch any of his other films. In The Aeronauts though I found him to be much less of a frustrating watch, some of the mannerisms are still there but I was definitely won over by his performance. (Please do recommend your favourite films from him in the comments.) He really managed to capture the obsession for knowledge in a very natural way and I found it very engaging.
Felicity Jones as out fictional Amelia Wren makes a great show of the theatrics and transition smoothly to the seriousness needed to convey their situation once they were in flight. I thought her role was incredibly well crafted and she made every moment up in that balloon very real for the audience.
The pair work amazingly together on screen and that's not really surprising seeing as they've worked together before on The Theory Of Everything. I would say that the chemistry they'd already developed helped to make that tiny basket really come to life for the viewer.
A special shout out to Bella who played Posey the dog, I have to assume that she didn't do her own stunts but regardless it was a great performance.
I was very pleased that they didn't feel the need to fill those beautiful silences. As they soared higher into the sky I'm sure they could have filled the gap with peaceful classical music and still been impressive but the visuals are so good that they really didn't need anything.
I don't want to touch much of the second half of the film because it really does need to be seen but it certainly doesn't disappoint. Everything escalates with the ascent and from camera work to effects it all comes together for a finale that has you glued to the screen.
As you can tell I really enjoyed The Aeronauts and I'm looking forward to an Unlimited Screening of it again soon. I have one tip for you, go in your summer clothes when you see it. No, I haven't gone mad(der), it's a great way to get a free 4DX experience by sitting near the air conditioning. You'll get colder and colder as the film progresses and you'll really feel like you're in the balloon with them.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-aeronauts-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Yards (2000) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Yards starts when Leo (Wahlberg) gets released from prison, needing to lock down a job his Aunt Kitty (Dunaway) sets him up with her husband Frank Olchin (Caan) who runs a railway construction company in Queens. Without the skills set, he can’t be given a job, but his bag man Willie (Phoenix) who is also Leo’s best friend recruits him to do the dirty work for the company.
When a job goes wrong Willie and Leo both commit an act of violence, only Leo can be identified, he must go on the run while finding everybody trying to hunt him down, trying to expose the truth before it is too late, with only is mother Val (Burstyn) and cousin Erica (Theron) to trust.
Thoughts on The Yards
Characters – Leo is an ex-con that is released from prison, he best friend and Uncle offer him two different jobs, one he isn’t qualified for and one would mean working against the law. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law after a job goes wrong needing to do anything he can to clear his name, while being considered the most wanted man in Queens. Willie is the best friend of Leo, he has made a career being the bag man for Frank which will see him complete the deals to make the business succeed. He ends up leading Leo down the wrong path, when it is him that makes the biggest mistake. Erica is the cousin of Leo and girlfriend to Willie, she is completing her education and gets caught between who to remain loyal towards. Frank runs the corrupt railway construction company that has nearly every political figure in his back pocket. He keeps himself looking clean, letting his men do the dirty work, leading to him being forced into a difficult decision. Val is the mother of Leo that has always tried to give him everything he could give him in life, left to suffer when he gets blamed for the crimes.
Performances – Mark Wahlberg is strong in the leading role, he gives us a performance that shows his regret, confusion and worries about the future he is meant to have once out of prison. Joaquin Phoenix brings us a performance which shows us just how he can make us hate a character. Charlize Theron in the supporting role shows us everything she needs to without getting the same spotlight as the rest of the cast, while James Caan works in the corrupt businessman role with ease. The rest of the cast are solid without doing anything outside the comfort zones.
Story – The story here takes us into the world of corruption within the Queens railway service construction company that pays off to get jobs after doing their own dirty work to make others look worse, we follow one ex-con being placed into this world who sees the bad only to become the prime suspect in the investigation of a murder. The story does try to keep us guessing to what will happen and who Leo could trust only for it to become to run of mill in the genre to make it new or original. It might be loosely based on a real case, it however doesn’t offer enough to make things feel like we could see too much going on, rather than focusing on the cover up itself.
Crime/Romance – The crime world we enter is the political corruption of construction which shows us how quickly people can turn on each other without doubt. The romance side of this story takes a back burner which is here to show how difficult of a position Erica is put into.
Settings – The film is set in Queen which shows us how the community will come together to work together or turn on somebody.
Scene of the Movie – The incident.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The story is overly generic.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting crime story that does everything by the book without doing anything overly special.
Overall: Simple crime film.
When a job goes wrong Willie and Leo both commit an act of violence, only Leo can be identified, he must go on the run while finding everybody trying to hunt him down, trying to expose the truth before it is too late, with only is mother Val (Burstyn) and cousin Erica (Theron) to trust.
Thoughts on The Yards
Characters – Leo is an ex-con that is released from prison, he best friend and Uncle offer him two different jobs, one he isn’t qualified for and one would mean working against the law. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law after a job goes wrong needing to do anything he can to clear his name, while being considered the most wanted man in Queens. Willie is the best friend of Leo, he has made a career being the bag man for Frank which will see him complete the deals to make the business succeed. He ends up leading Leo down the wrong path, when it is him that makes the biggest mistake. Erica is the cousin of Leo and girlfriend to Willie, she is completing her education and gets caught between who to remain loyal towards. Frank runs the corrupt railway construction company that has nearly every political figure in his back pocket. He keeps himself looking clean, letting his men do the dirty work, leading to him being forced into a difficult decision. Val is the mother of Leo that has always tried to give him everything he could give him in life, left to suffer when he gets blamed for the crimes.
Performances – Mark Wahlberg is strong in the leading role, he gives us a performance that shows his regret, confusion and worries about the future he is meant to have once out of prison. Joaquin Phoenix brings us a performance which shows us just how he can make us hate a character. Charlize Theron in the supporting role shows us everything she needs to without getting the same spotlight as the rest of the cast, while James Caan works in the corrupt businessman role with ease. The rest of the cast are solid without doing anything outside the comfort zones.
Story – The story here takes us into the world of corruption within the Queens railway service construction company that pays off to get jobs after doing their own dirty work to make others look worse, we follow one ex-con being placed into this world who sees the bad only to become the prime suspect in the investigation of a murder. The story does try to keep us guessing to what will happen and who Leo could trust only for it to become to run of mill in the genre to make it new or original. It might be loosely based on a real case, it however doesn’t offer enough to make things feel like we could see too much going on, rather than focusing on the cover up itself.
Crime/Romance – The crime world we enter is the political corruption of construction which shows us how quickly people can turn on each other without doubt. The romance side of this story takes a back burner which is here to show how difficult of a position Erica is put into.
Settings – The film is set in Queen which shows us how the community will come together to work together or turn on somebody.
Scene of the Movie – The incident.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The story is overly generic.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting crime story that does everything by the book without doing anything overly special.
Overall: Simple crime film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Annabelle (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Annabelle is the newest demon-based spooky fright film produced by James Wan (producer Saw II-IV & director Insidious 1&2). The trailers would have you believe that it is a prequel to the Conjuring. Well I suppose it is, although a very loose prequel.
Annabelle, the possessed doll, is mentioned a few times in “The Conjuring,” but it doesn’t contain any of the cast from the original . The film takes place in the 1970s and focuses on a married couple who have just moved in to a new house and the wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis) is pregnant. Her husband (played extremely woodenly by actor Ward Horton) buys her a long sought after custom doll named Annabelle. Shortly after, the couple is attacked by their neighbors who we find are satanic cult members. Mia is stabbed in her belly (threatening the life of her child); the female Satanist neighbor dies clutching the Annabelle doll, her blood dripping and seemingly sucked into the eye socket of the doll, ushering in the demonic reign of Annabelle.
You’d assume that this is a standard “killer doll” horror flick, you’d also be a bit misled, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. This isn’t Chucky. You won’t see Annabelle speaking or running around the house brandishing a knife. That isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have its share of genre tropes, it has plenty of those.
As so many other possession/haunting movies involving a couple, for the most part the lonely wife is preyed upon while the husband is away at work. Throughout the film the writers find multiple ways of keeping Mia at home alone with the demon. John is called away on a business trip on one of the more traumatic encounters Mia has with Annabelle, resulting in Mia being placed on bed rest, giving her a reason to stay at home in the demons clutches. Later John is placed on the night shift, once again placing him out of the way so the demon can terrorize Mia at night where things are scary. It is inevitable that a scene takes place where her husband doesn’t believe her and thinks she’s going crazy. I can think of so many films that go this same route. The prerequisite priest comes along to help the family figure out their demonic happenings and oh yes, let’s not forget the sagely African American that needs to help Mia find her way and lead her both in knowledge of the demon and its demise. The story manages to throw in some mysterious children to once scene just to make sure that the trope is checked off the list. The remainder of the movie after the introductory attack by the satanic neighbors has Mia and later her child being threatened by the demon possessing Annabelle, the search for what it is, and what it wants and then its climax and disposal. Nothing new to this genre found here.
Annabelle does come with its share of scares (most of these can be seen in the previews), however the pacing is bad. I found myself bored out of my mind by the plot between the scares. So bored and disinterested that once the scary scenes occurred which seemed to be paced almost on a timer there wasn’t enough scare to raise the adrenaline needed to make it to the next fright. I will say that having a child endangered and threatened by the demonic spirit does bump up the tension and nerves and was a necessary inclusion to raise the stakes and pull out some reason to care about the victims by the audience.
Mia and John are so one-imensional that one would be hard-pressed to care about what happens to either of them. The demon effects are about as scary as a guy in a rubber suit lurking around a two-bit horror house, I mean pretty bad. I’ve seen a scarier demon on a TV episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” from 1988. Annabelle is good for a fright or two, and a reason to grab some popcorn and pig-out, but just be prepared to take a siesta three or four times in-between bouts of popcorn binge.
Annabelle, the possessed doll, is mentioned a few times in “The Conjuring,” but it doesn’t contain any of the cast from the original . The film takes place in the 1970s and focuses on a married couple who have just moved in to a new house and the wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis) is pregnant. Her husband (played extremely woodenly by actor Ward Horton) buys her a long sought after custom doll named Annabelle. Shortly after, the couple is attacked by their neighbors who we find are satanic cult members. Mia is stabbed in her belly (threatening the life of her child); the female Satanist neighbor dies clutching the Annabelle doll, her blood dripping and seemingly sucked into the eye socket of the doll, ushering in the demonic reign of Annabelle.
You’d assume that this is a standard “killer doll” horror flick, you’d also be a bit misled, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. This isn’t Chucky. You won’t see Annabelle speaking or running around the house brandishing a knife. That isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have its share of genre tropes, it has plenty of those.
As so many other possession/haunting movies involving a couple, for the most part the lonely wife is preyed upon while the husband is away at work. Throughout the film the writers find multiple ways of keeping Mia at home alone with the demon. John is called away on a business trip on one of the more traumatic encounters Mia has with Annabelle, resulting in Mia being placed on bed rest, giving her a reason to stay at home in the demons clutches. Later John is placed on the night shift, once again placing him out of the way so the demon can terrorize Mia at night where things are scary. It is inevitable that a scene takes place where her husband doesn’t believe her and thinks she’s going crazy. I can think of so many films that go this same route. The prerequisite priest comes along to help the family figure out their demonic happenings and oh yes, let’s not forget the sagely African American that needs to help Mia find her way and lead her both in knowledge of the demon and its demise. The story manages to throw in some mysterious children to once scene just to make sure that the trope is checked off the list. The remainder of the movie after the introductory attack by the satanic neighbors has Mia and later her child being threatened by the demon possessing Annabelle, the search for what it is, and what it wants and then its climax and disposal. Nothing new to this genre found here.
Annabelle does come with its share of scares (most of these can be seen in the previews), however the pacing is bad. I found myself bored out of my mind by the plot between the scares. So bored and disinterested that once the scary scenes occurred which seemed to be paced almost on a timer there wasn’t enough scare to raise the adrenaline needed to make it to the next fright. I will say that having a child endangered and threatened by the demonic spirit does bump up the tension and nerves and was a necessary inclusion to raise the stakes and pull out some reason to care about the victims by the audience.
Mia and John are so one-imensional that one would be hard-pressed to care about what happens to either of them. The demon effects are about as scary as a guy in a rubber suit lurking around a two-bit horror house, I mean pretty bad. I’ve seen a scarier demon on a TV episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” from 1988. Annabelle is good for a fright or two, and a reason to grab some popcorn and pig-out, but just be prepared to take a siesta three or four times in-between bouts of popcorn binge.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Alien (1979) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020
This classic holds up very, very well more than 40 years later
I convinced my cynical 19 year old to watch an "ancient" film (her phrase) - so I was careful with my choice. I know she likes horror, so thought I would try to see if she could be scared the old fashioned way and pulled the 1979 Sci-Fi/Horror classic ALIEN off the shelves to show her.
It scared the crap outta her.
Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...
As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.
What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.
The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.
Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.
But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.
The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.
It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.
Letter Grade: A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It scared the crap outta her.
Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...
As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.
What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.
The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.
Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.
But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.
The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.
It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.
Letter Grade: A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Full Dark No Stars in Books
Apr 14, 2020
Casual Review
Full Dark, No Stars is a collection of four short stories by Stephen King. These stories include 1922, Big Driver, Fair Extension, and A Good Marriage. As Stephen King admits in the Afterword at the back of the book these four stories are disturbing and hard to read at times but they are well worth it. In these four books Stephen King explores the possibility of each person having at least one more person inside them, the person that comes out when we experience something too traumatic for our typical self to handle. What happens when this person we keep hidden deep inside of us gets let out? Can we put this person back and go on to live a normal life or does it change us forever?
1922
This story reminded me largely of Poe's Tell-Tale Heart and I am sure many other bookworms will see the resemblance between these two stories. Wilfred Leland James is a farmer living on 80 acres of land with his wife and his son. When his wife is given 100 acres of adjacent land when her father dies, Wilfred is thrilled until he learns that she plans on selling all of it off to a big company and that there is nothing he can do to stop her. She is determined to sell the land and move to the city, taking their son with her either Wilfred wants to go or not. Their respective stubbornness starts a chain of events that can only end in pain and misery for all involved.
Big Driver
Tess is a mystery writer of the sort that writes simple little mysteries often read by older ladies and their book clubs and who occasionally makes guest appearances to talk about her books. When she takes a shortcut home suggested to her after one such event she finds herself in a world that she doesn't even dare to write about. A stranger stopping to help her ends up having other plans for her and leaves her for dead after raping her multiple times. Tess manages to survive and makes her way home but the damage has been done in more than one way and she sets out to get revenge on all she believes to be involved in what happened. Is it possible though that she doesn't know the full story?
Fair Extension
Dave Streeter has cancer and doesn't have much time left to live, under a year for sure. He is extremely jealous of an old friend of his from school who seems to have it all while Dave and his family are not struggling but they also are not doing as well as what his old friend is. Then one day while heading home and contemplating his life. he sees a man along the extension by the airport with a little stand set up. This man offers Dave an extension on his life but Dave has to offer someone that he hates up to this man in exchange, not to kill him but someone must pay the price.
A Good Marriage
One day while Darcy's husband is away on business and she is looking for batteries she stubbles on a box that her husband has hidden under a table in the garage. When she tries to push the box under the table the rest of the way she pushes the box up against something that she ends up wishing she never investigated. When she looks at what the box hit she ends up discovering that her husband has been harboring a horrible secret from even before they were married but this puts her in a very bad spot. She fears no one would believe that she did not know about what he was doing until now and she also fears the stigma that the discovery will leave on their children. At the same time though she must do something about what she found out.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
1922
This story reminded me largely of Poe's Tell-Tale Heart and I am sure many other bookworms will see the resemblance between these two stories. Wilfred Leland James is a farmer living on 80 acres of land with his wife and his son. When his wife is given 100 acres of adjacent land when her father dies, Wilfred is thrilled until he learns that she plans on selling all of it off to a big company and that there is nothing he can do to stop her. She is determined to sell the land and move to the city, taking their son with her either Wilfred wants to go or not. Their respective stubbornness starts a chain of events that can only end in pain and misery for all involved.
Big Driver
Tess is a mystery writer of the sort that writes simple little mysteries often read by older ladies and their book clubs and who occasionally makes guest appearances to talk about her books. When she takes a shortcut home suggested to her after one such event she finds herself in a world that she doesn't even dare to write about. A stranger stopping to help her ends up having other plans for her and leaves her for dead after raping her multiple times. Tess manages to survive and makes her way home but the damage has been done in more than one way and she sets out to get revenge on all she believes to be involved in what happened. Is it possible though that she doesn't know the full story?
Fair Extension
Dave Streeter has cancer and doesn't have much time left to live, under a year for sure. He is extremely jealous of an old friend of his from school who seems to have it all while Dave and his family are not struggling but they also are not doing as well as what his old friend is. Then one day while heading home and contemplating his life. he sees a man along the extension by the airport with a little stand set up. This man offers Dave an extension on his life but Dave has to offer someone that he hates up to this man in exchange, not to kill him but someone must pay the price.
A Good Marriage
One day while Darcy's husband is away on business and she is looking for batteries she stubbles on a box that her husband has hidden under a table in the garage. When she tries to push the box under the table the rest of the way she pushes the box up against something that she ends up wishing she never investigated. When she looks at what the box hit she ends up discovering that her husband has been harboring a horrible secret from even before they were married but this puts her in a very bad spot. She fears no one would believe that she did not know about what he was doing until now and she also fears the stigma that the discovery will leave on their children. At the same time though she must do something about what she found out.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader