Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Inglourious Basterds (2009) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
It's the middle of World War II and France is overrun with Nazis. A group of Jewish-American soldiers is making a name for themselves as, "The Basterds," as they have the full intention of scalping each and every Nazi involved in the Third Reich. The Basterds soon become a real nuisance to The Fuhrer as their reputation strengthens and fear spreads like wildfire amongst the Nazis. Shosanna Dreyfus, a French-Jew whose family was killed by the Nazis, now owns a movie theater that catches the eye of Joseph Goebbels and his new film. The smaller, more private theater gets handpicked by Fredrick Zoller, a Nazi war hero and star of Goebbels film Nation's Pride, for the premiere of his new film. As the premiere becomes an intimate gathering of the Nazis, including the most important people of the Third Reich, The Basterds realize this may be their chance to end this war once and for all.
Inglourious Basterds had the potential to be one of the greatest films of the year. It's the first full-length film from Quentin Tarantino since Death Proof and his films from the past 12 years have escalated him into being one of the most well-respected filmmakers of our time. That along with an incredibly strong cast led by Brad Pitt and the fact that the film took place during World War II had me incredibly excited for the film. I'm a fairly big admirer of most of Tarantino's previous works and there's something about World War II and Nazis that I've always found fascinating. The final product was still good, but just didn't wind up meeting my expectations.
The concept of Inglourious Basterds is rather ingenious. A group of Jewish-Americans coming together and killing as many Nazis as they can. An ultimate form of revenge. Not only that, but an incredible sense of satisfaction washes over them while they partake in it. It's great and is pulled off rather flawlessly when we actually get to see The Basterds in action. As much as I love Tarantino's dialogue, it just seemed like the majority of the film was spent waiting around and talking about what was actually going to happen. Significant events still took place, but there's really only three or four scenes that come to mind that you could label as being exciting. Whether the film needed more of that is fully up to the viewer, but I'm under the impression that the film was a bit lacking in that department. Something else that should be mentioned, the film is not historically accurate. It's more of a World War II set in the Tarantino-verse kind of deal and is more of an alternate universe. Knowing that before seeing the movie helped a great deal in enjoying the film a bit more.
As enjoyable as Brad Pitt's performance as Lt. Aldo Raine was, I believe the real performance worth noting is Christoph Waltz's portrayal of Col. Hans Landa. He's somehow able to walk the thin line between being polite and charming to being a frightening lunatic rather flawlessly. Even as he closes in on The Basterds and their plans, he still manages to steal most of the scenes he's in (the discussion about comparing Jews to rats at the beginning of the film, the "That's-a-bingo!" conversation with Aldo, etc). Landa is just an incredible detective with a marvelous personality that might just be one of the greatest characters Tarantino has ever written.
Inglourious Basterds is an extremely solid effort from Tarantino. The dialogue is definitely up to Tarantino's standard greatness, the performances are quite incredible, and the story is an entertaining one even with it straying away from what actually happened during that time period. It's just a shame it didn't meet the expectations I had based on the trailers and how much I enjoyed the past few Tarantino films. The hard hitting action scenes are magnificent, but it felt like there were too few and far between. The best suggestion I could give would be to go into the film expecting nothing and I think you'll walk away satisfied.
Inglourious Basterds had the potential to be one of the greatest films of the year. It's the first full-length film from Quentin Tarantino since Death Proof and his films from the past 12 years have escalated him into being one of the most well-respected filmmakers of our time. That along with an incredibly strong cast led by Brad Pitt and the fact that the film took place during World War II had me incredibly excited for the film. I'm a fairly big admirer of most of Tarantino's previous works and there's something about World War II and Nazis that I've always found fascinating. The final product was still good, but just didn't wind up meeting my expectations.
The concept of Inglourious Basterds is rather ingenious. A group of Jewish-Americans coming together and killing as many Nazis as they can. An ultimate form of revenge. Not only that, but an incredible sense of satisfaction washes over them while they partake in it. It's great and is pulled off rather flawlessly when we actually get to see The Basterds in action. As much as I love Tarantino's dialogue, it just seemed like the majority of the film was spent waiting around and talking about what was actually going to happen. Significant events still took place, but there's really only three or four scenes that come to mind that you could label as being exciting. Whether the film needed more of that is fully up to the viewer, but I'm under the impression that the film was a bit lacking in that department. Something else that should be mentioned, the film is not historically accurate. It's more of a World War II set in the Tarantino-verse kind of deal and is more of an alternate universe. Knowing that before seeing the movie helped a great deal in enjoying the film a bit more.
As enjoyable as Brad Pitt's performance as Lt. Aldo Raine was, I believe the real performance worth noting is Christoph Waltz's portrayal of Col. Hans Landa. He's somehow able to walk the thin line between being polite and charming to being a frightening lunatic rather flawlessly. Even as he closes in on The Basterds and their plans, he still manages to steal most of the scenes he's in (the discussion about comparing Jews to rats at the beginning of the film, the "That's-a-bingo!" conversation with Aldo, etc). Landa is just an incredible detective with a marvelous personality that might just be one of the greatest characters Tarantino has ever written.
Inglourious Basterds is an extremely solid effort from Tarantino. The dialogue is definitely up to Tarantino's standard greatness, the performances are quite incredible, and the story is an entertaining one even with it straying away from what actually happened during that time period. It's just a shame it didn't meet the expectations I had based on the trailers and how much I enjoyed the past few Tarantino films. The hard hitting action scenes are magnificent, but it felt like there were too few and far between. The best suggestion I could give would be to go into the film expecting nothing and I think you'll walk away satisfied.
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Falconer's Crusade in Books
Apr 7, 2018
Great historical aspect, mystery not so much
This is a pretty short mystery to read through. Looks can be deceiving though. Despite being short, it’s packed in with some heavy duty stuff.
The setting for example. Very rich in detail and gives you a sense on how it was back then in William Falconer’s time. Add in some political intrigue, a Jewish Quarter, and some rioting and it gets pretty exciting. I really can’t get over how great the setting is. It’s so descriptive you can feel the darkness and the dampness that permeates throughout the novel. Morson also does an excellent job to stay close to historical accuracy here in this novel as well. Forensic pathology is frowned upon, and you even get to see Falconer try on a strange contraption that looks a lot like Medieval opera glasses at the time. :)
The plot is pretty straight forward although there is not much of a secret mystery element in it. The suspect list is not extensive (thankfully! You’ll see why as you read further into this review) and when revealed it’s not much of a surprise or an a ha! Moment. There isn’t much personality to the characters except Falconer and his student Thomas. Thomas is a particular dolt. A Farmer boy who managed to be gifted and chosen to study and be a Scholar, well, for all the idiotic moves he makes, you have to wonder how the University chose this guy to let him attend their school. He fumbles and stumbles at the worst times and always manages to get himself into some life threatening situations (and doesn’t learn from it). It was funny the first few times, but after a while it gets annoying and you want to slap this boy upside the head. (You don’t deserve Hannah’s attention, you twit).
I’m going to assume it will get better with other books in this series, and this one serves as an introduction to the series. Since I really do love the historical aspect I will stick with this series and see where it takes me. Historical mystery lovers will love the setting and theme of this book, the mystery part, not so much.
The setting for example. Very rich in detail and gives you a sense on how it was back then in William Falconer’s time. Add in some political intrigue, a Jewish Quarter, and some rioting and it gets pretty exciting. I really can’t get over how great the setting is. It’s so descriptive you can feel the darkness and the dampness that permeates throughout the novel. Morson also does an excellent job to stay close to historical accuracy here in this novel as well. Forensic pathology is frowned upon, and you even get to see Falconer try on a strange contraption that looks a lot like Medieval opera glasses at the time. :)
The plot is pretty straight forward although there is not much of a secret mystery element in it. The suspect list is not extensive (thankfully! You’ll see why as you read further into this review) and when revealed it’s not much of a surprise or an a ha! Moment. There isn’t much personality to the characters except Falconer and his student Thomas. Thomas is a particular dolt. A Farmer boy who managed to be gifted and chosen to study and be a Scholar, well, for all the idiotic moves he makes, you have to wonder how the University chose this guy to let him attend their school. He fumbles and stumbles at the worst times and always manages to get himself into some life threatening situations (and doesn’t learn from it). It was funny the first few times, but after a while it gets annoying and you want to slap this boy upside the head. (You don’t deserve Hannah’s attention, you twit).
I’m going to assume it will get better with other books in this series, and this one serves as an introduction to the series. Since I really do love the historical aspect I will stick with this series and see where it takes me. Historical mystery lovers will love the setting and theme of this book, the mystery part, not so much.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Golem (2019) in Movies
Mar 8, 2019
Had Potential But Came Up Short
The more movies I watch, the more I want to find those hidden gems. You know, that movie you know no one else has seen that actually turns out to be really good. I was hoping The Golem would be one of those movies. Nope.
The Plot: Set in a Jewish community in the 1600’s, a woman invokes a powerful entity to help save her village from invaders.
Acting: 10
Despite other glaring issues with the film, performances was not one of them. I was impressed with Hani Furstenberg in her lead role as Hanna. Hani breathes pain and frustration into her character and really makes the audience sympathize with the character. She plays a character that’s seemingly dead inside because of the monotonous life she lives. I also enjoyed young Konstantin Anikienko as The Golem. Talk about creepy. I’m sure he spent a lot of time practicing his slow, deliberate movements and calculating gaze. Definitely gave me a shiver a time or two.
Beginning: 5
Characters: 6
Outside of Hanna and The Golem, there are not really any other characters to care about. There were even times where I found it hard to even care for Hanna. Some of the things that happened were out of her control, but some of it was totally her fault and I’m thinking, “Yeah, you kinda did this to yourself.” While her character was solid, it seemed like they dumped the full emotional load on her and I feel like more time could have been taken to develop other characters as well.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 4
Genre: 5
Memorability: 3
Pace: 4
Plot: 6
Not the worst story but it definitely left me with a few questions. Unfortunately the plot didn’t leave room for much character development which left me unsatisfied. Sometimes linear can be good. Other times, that line is just a little bit too long…
Resolution: 5
Overall: 55
While some of the cinematic work is cool especially as it relates to the action sequences with the Golem, this movie left me entirely too underwhelmed. Guess I’ll have to look elsewhere for my sneaky good movie.
The Plot: Set in a Jewish community in the 1600’s, a woman invokes a powerful entity to help save her village from invaders.
Acting: 10
Despite other glaring issues with the film, performances was not one of them. I was impressed with Hani Furstenberg in her lead role as Hanna. Hani breathes pain and frustration into her character and really makes the audience sympathize with the character. She plays a character that’s seemingly dead inside because of the monotonous life she lives. I also enjoyed young Konstantin Anikienko as The Golem. Talk about creepy. I’m sure he spent a lot of time practicing his slow, deliberate movements and calculating gaze. Definitely gave me a shiver a time or two.
Beginning: 5
Characters: 6
Outside of Hanna and The Golem, there are not really any other characters to care about. There were even times where I found it hard to even care for Hanna. Some of the things that happened were out of her control, but some of it was totally her fault and I’m thinking, “Yeah, you kinda did this to yourself.” While her character was solid, it seemed like they dumped the full emotional load on her and I feel like more time could have been taken to develop other characters as well.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 4
Genre: 5
Memorability: 3
Pace: 4
Plot: 6
Not the worst story but it definitely left me with a few questions. Unfortunately the plot didn’t leave room for much character development which left me unsatisfied. Sometimes linear can be good. Other times, that line is just a little bit too long…
Resolution: 5
Overall: 55
While some of the cinematic work is cool especially as it relates to the action sequences with the Golem, this movie left me entirely too underwhelmed. Guess I’ll have to look elsewhere for my sneaky good movie.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Who Do You Love in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Who Do You Love</i> is the latest contemporary romance by the author Jennifer Weiner. Beginning in 1985 it tells the story of two contrasting characters up until the year 2015. Rachel was born with a congenital heart condition that resulted in her being hospitalized a number of times during her childhood. When she was eight years old she met an injured boy named Andy and struck up a very brief friendship. Later she coincidently meets him again during her teens, and the pair fall in love, resulting in an on and off long distance relationship over the following years.
Despite their love for each other, the two main characters come from completely different backgrounds. Putting her heart condition aside, Rachel had a fairly pleasant Jewish upbringing, with well off parents, a pool in her back yard, the chance to go to any college she wished to. Andy, on the other hand, attended a Roman Catholic school where he was constantly getting in to trouble for fighting when others teased him about his poor, single parent home life, or his deceased black father. However, regardless of their upbringing, Rachel grows up to become a fairly successful social worker, and Andy an Olympic athlete.
The reader gets the chance to learn about each character through the alternating points of view. Ultimately we wish that Andy and Rachel could live happily ever after together, but as we read, life and differences often get in the way. This will they, won’t they idea exists throughout the entire novel making the ending rather predictable, although not at all disappointing.
Personally I preferred the narrative toward the beginning of the story. It was interesting to read about Rachel’s heart problems, and Andy’s struggles growing up. Once they reached adulthood their relationship became more sexual, something that was written about in far too much detail.
<i>Who Do You Love</i> is the kind of book suitable for women to read over the summer, or anytime they have the opportunity to sit back and relax. It is not a quick read due to its lengthy chapters, therefore the less distractions the better!
Who Do You Love</i> is the latest contemporary romance by the author Jennifer Weiner. Beginning in 1985 it tells the story of two contrasting characters up until the year 2015. Rachel was born with a congenital heart condition that resulted in her being hospitalized a number of times during her childhood. When she was eight years old she met an injured boy named Andy and struck up a very brief friendship. Later she coincidently meets him again during her teens, and the pair fall in love, resulting in an on and off long distance relationship over the following years.
Despite their love for each other, the two main characters come from completely different backgrounds. Putting her heart condition aside, Rachel had a fairly pleasant Jewish upbringing, with well off parents, a pool in her back yard, the chance to go to any college she wished to. Andy, on the other hand, attended a Roman Catholic school where he was constantly getting in to trouble for fighting when others teased him about his poor, single parent home life, or his deceased black father. However, regardless of their upbringing, Rachel grows up to become a fairly successful social worker, and Andy an Olympic athlete.
The reader gets the chance to learn about each character through the alternating points of view. Ultimately we wish that Andy and Rachel could live happily ever after together, but as we read, life and differences often get in the way. This will they, won’t they idea exists throughout the entire novel making the ending rather predictable, although not at all disappointing.
Personally I preferred the narrative toward the beginning of the story. It was interesting to read about Rachel’s heart problems, and Andy’s struggles growing up. Once they reached adulthood their relationship became more sexual, something that was written about in far too much detail.
<i>Who Do You Love</i> is the kind of book suitable for women to read over the summer, or anytime they have the opportunity to sit back and relax. It is not a quick read due to its lengthy chapters, therefore the less distractions the better!
ACF - Bíblia de Estudo Fiel
Book and Education
App
******* Listen to the Bible In Portuguese ******* - Download the new module with the ACF Bible...
Physics in a Mad World
Book
This book tells captivating stories of misadventures of two renowned theoretical physicists in the...
Lonely Planet Budapest
Lonely Planet, Steve Fallon and Sally Schafer
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet Budapest is your passport to...
Uganda be Kidding Me
2.0
Rate It
Book
I awoke at 4:45 am in Johannesburg, South Africa, in my bra and underwear and looked over at my...
179 Bible Atlas Maps
Reference and Education
App
Locations important to the Bible are covered in this atlas covering 1000s of years and vast areas of...
Here in Berlin: A Novel
Book
Long-listed for the Andrew Carnegie Medal for Excellence A New York Times Book Review Editor's...