Search
Lee (2222 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
A Monster Calls is based on an idea by writer and activist Siobhan Dowd, who sadly died from cancer in 2007 before she could develop her story to print. Her ideas were developed into a book by Patrick Ness in 2011 and illustrated by Jim Kay where it went on to receive a number of childrens literary awards.
The story is set in a very dreary looking England and features a boy called Conor struggling to cope with his mother’s terminal cancer. His father is divorced from his mother and is living in the States with his new family. He’s bullied at school and he’s troubled by nightmares. And then he starts being visited at night by a monster who tells him 3 stories. It’s a bleak tale about the harshness of life, and I was kind of worried about how my 11 year old daughter might take to it when she said she wanted to see it with me.
J.A.Bayona, director of The Orphanage, handles the subject matter well, showing us how a child’s fantasy can make sense of the world and their feelings. The stories told by the monster occur over a number of days and are beautifully depicted in watercolour animation. Each one providing its own lesson to be learned in life. Liam Neeson is the monster, the large yew tree that Conor can see from his bedroom window, giving his best Aslan voice. Felicity Jones is the mother, gradually dying as each cancer drug fails. Sigourney Weaver is the grandmother who Conor reluctantly goes to stay with while his mother is receiving treatment.
The monster itself, the great yew tree, is a real triumph. Beautifully rendered and realistically interacting with its surroundings. When you consider the films meagre budget of 43 million dollars, it’s breathtaking what they’ve managed to achieve.
As expected, the movie really packs a punch with barely any humour or lightheartedness. There are times it’s a little too slow and gloomy, but it’s hard hitting thought provoking and intense. I don’t mind admitting that both me and my daughter found ourselves in tears towards the end too. Along with most of the cinema!
The story is set in a very dreary looking England and features a boy called Conor struggling to cope with his mother’s terminal cancer. His father is divorced from his mother and is living in the States with his new family. He’s bullied at school and he’s troubled by nightmares. And then he starts being visited at night by a monster who tells him 3 stories. It’s a bleak tale about the harshness of life, and I was kind of worried about how my 11 year old daughter might take to it when she said she wanted to see it with me.
J.A.Bayona, director of The Orphanage, handles the subject matter well, showing us how a child’s fantasy can make sense of the world and their feelings. The stories told by the monster occur over a number of days and are beautifully depicted in watercolour animation. Each one providing its own lesson to be learned in life. Liam Neeson is the monster, the large yew tree that Conor can see from his bedroom window, giving his best Aslan voice. Felicity Jones is the mother, gradually dying as each cancer drug fails. Sigourney Weaver is the grandmother who Conor reluctantly goes to stay with while his mother is receiving treatment.
The monster itself, the great yew tree, is a real triumph. Beautifully rendered and realistically interacting with its surroundings. When you consider the films meagre budget of 43 million dollars, it’s breathtaking what they’ve managed to achieve.
As expected, the movie really packs a punch with barely any humour or lightheartedness. There are times it’s a little too slow and gloomy, but it’s hard hitting thought provoking and intense. I don’t mind admitting that both me and my daughter found ourselves in tears towards the end too. Along with most of the cinema!
<i>Mean Streets</i> is one of the best anthologies I've read in a while. It only has four different pieces in it, but they're all novellas, and all by strong, experienced writers. I don't think any of them are here riding on someone else's name on the book cover.
Jim Butcher's "Warrior," the first piece, is very good. It follows Harry and the Carpenter family after they experienced some major changes in the last Dresden novel. I could have stood a little more Molly, but Harry and Michael were the focus characters and they worked out some things that really needed to be dealt with. I'm glad I read this before the next Dresden novel, because I feel there's important character development. I seriously recommend this book to all Dresden fans.
I haven't read any of Simon R. Green's novels, though I've heard of the Nightside series and thought about picking one up. If "The Difference a Day Makes" is typical, though, I may not bother. He is a good writer, so I'm not sure what it is that bothered me so much. I know that something framed as one of the nastiest things people could choose to do in this piece isn't even in my top 10, but I feel there's something else that I just can't quite articulate yet.
I've read all three of Kat Richardson's Greywalker novels and enjoyed them enough that I plan to keep reading. "The Third Death of the Little Clay Dog" is my favorite piece of her work, hands down. There's more light, somehow, and that's important to me.
"Noah's Orphans" is my first exposure to Thomas E. Sniegoski, as far as I can recall. It was an interesting piece. I found myself wondering about Remy Chandler's past, about how the character has developed. If there are novels featuring that character, I may give them a read. In any case, it brought up some interesting questions about faith and obedience. I think it would have been more personally relevant to me about 20 years ago, though.
Jim Butcher's "Warrior," the first piece, is very good. It follows Harry and the Carpenter family after they experienced some major changes in the last Dresden novel. I could have stood a little more Molly, but Harry and Michael were the focus characters and they worked out some things that really needed to be dealt with. I'm glad I read this before the next Dresden novel, because I feel there's important character development. I seriously recommend this book to all Dresden fans.
I haven't read any of Simon R. Green's novels, though I've heard of the Nightside series and thought about picking one up. If "The Difference a Day Makes" is typical, though, I may not bother. He is a good writer, so I'm not sure what it is that bothered me so much. I know that something framed as one of the nastiest things people could choose to do in this piece isn't even in my top 10, but I feel there's something else that I just can't quite articulate yet.
I've read all three of Kat Richardson's Greywalker novels and enjoyed them enough that I plan to keep reading. "The Third Death of the Little Clay Dog" is my favorite piece of her work, hands down. There's more light, somehow, and that's important to me.
"Noah's Orphans" is my first exposure to Thomas E. Sniegoski, as far as I can recall. It was an interesting piece. I found myself wondering about Remy Chandler's past, about how the character has developed. If there are novels featuring that character, I may give them a read. In any case, it brought up some interesting questions about faith and obedience. I think it would have been more personally relevant to me about 20 years ago, though.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Stranger Things: Darkness on the Edge of Town in Books
Jul 17, 2019
Jim Hopper (1 more)
Serial killers and cults, oh my!
Too much attention to detail (1 more)
Using the same body language for every character
In 1977, New York City was a disaster; men were trying to return to a normal life after Vietnam ended, gangs were on every street corner, and a serial killer, by the name 'Son of Sam,' was on the loose. But for Detective Jim Hopper, New York was housing another serial killer just for him- - - a killer who is killing Vietnam war veterans, and leaving behind a psychic calling card, known as the Zener cards.
Adam Christopher is the chosen author to tell Stranger Things' fans about the most important homicide case that Jim Hopper ever worked on in the novel 'Darkness on the Edge of Town.' Fans may recall from season 2, when Eleven found a secret hatch in Hopper's cabin, it revealed boxes under the floor - one which was labeled 'New York.' This is that story.
The entire book is Hopper telling Eleven about his greatest homicide story from New York City. Readers get to meet new characters from Hopper's past, but the most memorable may be his partner in the Homicide Unit, Rosario Delgado (1977 was a time where Homicide Units didn't allow female detectives, and Delgado is one of the first of few that is allowed into the unit). Delgado, who is Cuban, but was raised in Queens, New York, has all the right attitude that wins over her partner, Hopper. The reader will realize that they are two-peas-in-a-pod.
Quickly, the story gets into the first case the two have together: the Zener card serial killer; here, we learn that there were two previous victims, both murdered the same way: stabbed five times with the wounds joining together to form a five-pointed star. Throughout the book, the story goes back and forth between 1977 and the present, where Eleven asks questions about the story, and also, Hopper questioning himself as to whether he should continue to tell Eleven the story.
But soon, we meet a very important man named Leroy Washington - a gang member who wants protection in exchange for the information that he holds- this leads Hopper to our villain: a cult leader who goes by the name Saint John. This villain believes that Satan is going to rise and destroy New York City.
Backtracking a little before, Hopper and Delgado are taken off the case of the Zener card murders, introducing readers to Special Agent Gallup. Gallup states that the third victim, Jacob Hoeler, was also a Special Agent, so the case is turned over to Federal Agents. "What you don't know, Detective, is that Jacob Hoeler is one of ours- - - Special Agent Jacob Hoeler. He was working on assignment, and the fact that he was killed in the course of his duties is of primary concern to my department. Therefore, we need to be sure that a most thorough investigation is carried out. In order to ensure that happens, we will be taking the case in-house. " Hopper, along with Delgado, refuse to let the case go, and secretly continue to work on it. But, as they dig deeper into the evidence and crime scenes, the two realize the murder case is a part of something much bigger - - - a cult that is armed with vehicles and weapons, ready to take over New York City for their leader, Saint John.
Readers get to see the story from both Hopper's and Delgado's point of view, which readers may question how Hopper knows Delgado's side of the story, but quickly to react, Eleven asks this very question for us: " 'Fair point,' said Hopper. 'But we - - - I mean, Delgado and me- - - we pieced it all together afterward. We had to interview everyone we could, and we put it all into a big official report. Actually, it took way longer to write that thing up than we spent on the investigation itself. We were even flown down to D.C. to present it to a bunch of anonymous suits in some federal building. They grilled us pretty well, too, although I ever found out who they all were. ' He grinned. ' Kinda sums the whole thing up, really.' " Even so, without Delgado's point of view, the story wouldn't have turned out as well as it did.
Hopper's obsession with cracking this case lands him in the center of it- - - he is recruited, not by choice, to the task force that is trying to top Saint John's big plan to destroy New York City. Leroy Washington, the informant from before, is Hopper's wing man for the mission, because Washington turns out to be a recruiting officer for the cult. Hopper is to pretend that he is a new recruit, and that he is an ex-cop, who just happened to 'murder' two people the night before. Hopper infiltrating the cult is one of the most exciting parts of the book, but the sequence of these scenes are much too short, leaving this reader disappointed.
Unfortunately, by this time, Delgado has become somewhat of a secondary character. She still works the case, being in the-know of Hopper going undercover, but we see little else of Delgado's character being developed. This is a missed opportunity indeed.
Although I enjoyed Christopher bringing Hopper's backstory to light, the writer is so detail oriented in his writing, that it bogged down much of the flow in the story. The reader is told things in almost every scene that come to nothing, and just seem to waste the reader's time. You may also find that the author uses the same words or physical actions to describe emotions for every single character (such as neck rolling to show stress), which gets old very quickly.
With that said, and only a few inconsistencies here and there, the book was very good. The story takes off pretty quickly and doesn't seem to slow down. The scenery descriptions put the reader right there with our favorite Hawkins Police Chief, Jim Hopper, but the best part about this book is that you don't have to be a Stranger Things' fan to enjoy it; anyone who enjoys Crime Fiction would love this story. Highly recommend!
Adam Christopher is the chosen author to tell Stranger Things' fans about the most important homicide case that Jim Hopper ever worked on in the novel 'Darkness on the Edge of Town.' Fans may recall from season 2, when Eleven found a secret hatch in Hopper's cabin, it revealed boxes under the floor - one which was labeled 'New York.' This is that story.
The entire book is Hopper telling Eleven about his greatest homicide story from New York City. Readers get to meet new characters from Hopper's past, but the most memorable may be his partner in the Homicide Unit, Rosario Delgado (1977 was a time where Homicide Units didn't allow female detectives, and Delgado is one of the first of few that is allowed into the unit). Delgado, who is Cuban, but was raised in Queens, New York, has all the right attitude that wins over her partner, Hopper. The reader will realize that they are two-peas-in-a-pod.
Quickly, the story gets into the first case the two have together: the Zener card serial killer; here, we learn that there were two previous victims, both murdered the same way: stabbed five times with the wounds joining together to form a five-pointed star. Throughout the book, the story goes back and forth between 1977 and the present, where Eleven asks questions about the story, and also, Hopper questioning himself as to whether he should continue to tell Eleven the story.
But soon, we meet a very important man named Leroy Washington - a gang member who wants protection in exchange for the information that he holds- this leads Hopper to our villain: a cult leader who goes by the name Saint John. This villain believes that Satan is going to rise and destroy New York City.
Backtracking a little before, Hopper and Delgado are taken off the case of the Zener card murders, introducing readers to Special Agent Gallup. Gallup states that the third victim, Jacob Hoeler, was also a Special Agent, so the case is turned over to Federal Agents. "What you don't know, Detective, is that Jacob Hoeler is one of ours- - - Special Agent Jacob Hoeler. He was working on assignment, and the fact that he was killed in the course of his duties is of primary concern to my department. Therefore, we need to be sure that a most thorough investigation is carried out. In order to ensure that happens, we will be taking the case in-house. " Hopper, along with Delgado, refuse to let the case go, and secretly continue to work on it. But, as they dig deeper into the evidence and crime scenes, the two realize the murder case is a part of something much bigger - - - a cult that is armed with vehicles and weapons, ready to take over New York City for their leader, Saint John.
Readers get to see the story from both Hopper's and Delgado's point of view, which readers may question how Hopper knows Delgado's side of the story, but quickly to react, Eleven asks this very question for us: " 'Fair point,' said Hopper. 'But we - - - I mean, Delgado and me- - - we pieced it all together afterward. We had to interview everyone we could, and we put it all into a big official report. Actually, it took way longer to write that thing up than we spent on the investigation itself. We were even flown down to D.C. to present it to a bunch of anonymous suits in some federal building. They grilled us pretty well, too, although I ever found out who they all were. ' He grinned. ' Kinda sums the whole thing up, really.' " Even so, without Delgado's point of view, the story wouldn't have turned out as well as it did.
Hopper's obsession with cracking this case lands him in the center of it- - - he is recruited, not by choice, to the task force that is trying to top Saint John's big plan to destroy New York City. Leroy Washington, the informant from before, is Hopper's wing man for the mission, because Washington turns out to be a recruiting officer for the cult. Hopper is to pretend that he is a new recruit, and that he is an ex-cop, who just happened to 'murder' two people the night before. Hopper infiltrating the cult is one of the most exciting parts of the book, but the sequence of these scenes are much too short, leaving this reader disappointed.
Unfortunately, by this time, Delgado has become somewhat of a secondary character. She still works the case, being in the-know of Hopper going undercover, but we see little else of Delgado's character being developed. This is a missed opportunity indeed.
Although I enjoyed Christopher bringing Hopper's backstory to light, the writer is so detail oriented in his writing, that it bogged down much of the flow in the story. The reader is told things in almost every scene that come to nothing, and just seem to waste the reader's time. You may also find that the author uses the same words or physical actions to describe emotions for every single character (such as neck rolling to show stress), which gets old very quickly.
With that said, and only a few inconsistencies here and there, the book was very good. The story takes off pretty quickly and doesn't seem to slow down. The scenery descriptions put the reader right there with our favorite Hawkins Police Chief, Jim Hopper, but the best part about this book is that you don't have to be a Stranger Things' fan to enjoy it; anyone who enjoys Crime Fiction would love this story. Highly recommend!
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal ‘invasion’ of British film and television programming. Like the British ‘music invasion’ some 60 years ago we just can’t seem to get enough of it. Today’s film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy ‘The Lady In The Van’. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, ‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated The Man Of Steel in Books
Nov 30, 2020
If you know me, you know that I have a strong dislike for the writing by Brian Michael Bendis. His last few years before his journey to DC Comics, the work he did on the X-titles, as well as GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, it was just rubbish! It was the end result of someone who clearly needed a change of scenery and a more focused editor! After reading this, I feel confident that what I just wrote, as well as feeling, is pretty close to the truth, as this, his first work for DC, was frikkin' A-MAZ-ING!
While I have a great love of Marvel (preferrably older stuff, as the new stuff is starting to stink like yesterday's diapers!), I also have a great love of DC (the comics, not the nation's capital, which stinks as well, but of ignorance, racism, and misogyny), especially Superman, a hero who has never been more needed than he is needed now! It is very apparent that BMB has a great love/admiration of the Big 'S'!
His Clark Kent is written different from Superman, making the <i>illusion</i> that much easier to swallow once the glasses and suit goes on over his costume. The character does not appear as "mild mannered" as he was originally conceived, but he also is not mean or off-putting. He is still an alien, but he embraced our customs, and the end result is quite pleasing, especially with the toxicity that exists with the US at this point in time!
Equally well written is BMB's handling of Lois Lane and Jon, her and Kal-El's son. Lois is both a successful, highly competent writer, but she is also a mother. Not an overbear, bitchy mom, but someone who cares for her son, as much as she cares for her husband. The boy, Jon, is written like a normal boy his age, but without that precociousness that seems to be given to young'uns his age on TV!
As I am so prone to do in my other reviews, I want to give credit to the art side of this tale. The artists (yes, artists, Plural.) on board is quite a top shelf gathering. Jim Lee handles the first issue, while Ivan Reis (BLACKEST NIGHT), Steve Rude (NEXUS), Jay Fabok (New 52 JUSTICE LEAGUE), and even Ryan Sook! What a heckuva good way to start your beginnings with DC!
While some are apt to disagree, Superman needs the red shorts! And, that, my friends, was Bendis' first order of business on taking on the Man of Steel! I look forward to seeing where he goes with Superman, as the character is one that many love, and many will expect something good! If this is the beginning, I can't wait to see where the rest of this ride takes us!
While I have a great love of Marvel (preferrably older stuff, as the new stuff is starting to stink like yesterday's diapers!), I also have a great love of DC (the comics, not the nation's capital, which stinks as well, but of ignorance, racism, and misogyny), especially Superman, a hero who has never been more needed than he is needed now! It is very apparent that BMB has a great love/admiration of the Big 'S'!
His Clark Kent is written different from Superman, making the <i>illusion</i> that much easier to swallow once the glasses and suit goes on over his costume. The character does not appear as "mild mannered" as he was originally conceived, but he also is not mean or off-putting. He is still an alien, but he embraced our customs, and the end result is quite pleasing, especially with the toxicity that exists with the US at this point in time!
Equally well written is BMB's handling of Lois Lane and Jon, her and Kal-El's son. Lois is both a successful, highly competent writer, but she is also a mother. Not an overbear, bitchy mom, but someone who cares for her son, as much as she cares for her husband. The boy, Jon, is written like a normal boy his age, but without that precociousness that seems to be given to young'uns his age on TV!
As I am so prone to do in my other reviews, I want to give credit to the art side of this tale. The artists (yes, artists, Plural.) on board is quite a top shelf gathering. Jim Lee handles the first issue, while Ivan Reis (BLACKEST NIGHT), Steve Rude (NEXUS), Jay Fabok (New 52 JUSTICE LEAGUE), and even Ryan Sook! What a heckuva good way to start your beginnings with DC!
While some are apt to disagree, Superman needs the red shorts! And, that, my friends, was Bendis' first order of business on taking on the Man of Steel! I look forward to seeing where he goes with Superman, as the character is one that many love, and many will expect something good! If this is the beginning, I can't wait to see where the rest of this ride takes us!
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated American Reunion (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It has often been said that you cannot turn back the hands of time, but thankfully Hollywood is a place where magical things happen. In the case of the gang from American Pie and the creative talents of writer directors Jon Hurwitz Hayden Schlossberg, the gang is back, better than ever, for another slice if pie. Hurwitz and Schlossberg are the creative team behind the ” Harold and Kumar” series and have been entrusted by Universal to carry on the American Pie series which had recently been relegated to four direct-to-DVD releases.
The new film reunites the entire cast from the original three films and centers around the gang’s 13 year high school reunion. Life has definitely taken them all in some unexpected directions. Jim (Jason Biggs) is married to Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), and are now parents to a little boy and enjoying a comfortable, if a tad uneventful, suburban lifestyle.
Oz (Chris Klein), is a successful Los Angeles sportscaster as well as a recent contestant on a popular national dance show. He spends his time mixing with celebrities and indulging a girlfriend who loves to party just a bit too much. Meanwhile, Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), is happily married but needs an escape from a domestic routine that includes watching reality shows with his wife.
Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) fancies himself a nomadic spirit who wanders the globe from one esoteric adventure to another, still looking for his true love while Stiffler (Seann William Scott), works at a prestigious firm and remains the guy who never misses an opportunity to wisecrack or sexually harass any female who crosses his path.
As reunion-type movies go, there are the expected moments of awkwardness and hilarity. And of course, it wouldn’t be an American Pie movie without moments of ridiculously crude antics, mainly from Stifler. What separates the film from the bevy of raunchy comedies that flooded the market after the success of the initial film, is that there is some maturity amongst the mayhem.
In between the outrageous antics, the various characters are forced to take deep examinations of their lives since graduation and in some cases grow up for the first time in their lives. Oz must comes to grips with his feelings for his former girlfriend Heather (Mena Suvari), as does Kevin when his former flame Vicky (Tara Reid), returns to town for the reunion. Jim and Michelle have to find a way to bring some sexual spark back into their lives while Finch needs to accept the mundane reality of his. And Stifler. Well, let’s just say he needs to find his true calling.
What really sold the film for me was not just the great chemistry between the cast but the way the script deftly moved the raunchy comedy along while combining character development and depth that is not normally found in films of this type. As I watched, I found that I had really missed this crew of unlikely friends, and really enjoyed catching up with them even when they were not extricating themselves from one over-the-top situation after another.
While the film did drag a bit slightly there was always an outrageous moment right around the corner that had the theater errupting in laughter or shrieking in disbelief. This film is rated R for good reason. The cast worked really great together and it was especially nice to see Klein back in the mix, as he had been noticeably absent from the last film in no small part due to his offscreen issues.
Eugene Levy and Jennifer Coolidge (Stifler’s mom) have some absolutely hysterical moments in film especially when Mr. Levenstein, widowed now for three years, decides to cut loose at a party and we get to see has wild side. I would also encourage viewers to make sure to stay through the credits as there is more comedy from this pair that must not be missed.
The supporting characters from the previous films were all given their moments to shine even if it is just in a small cameo. Shannon Elizabeth, Natasha Lyonne, John Cho, and of course, the Sherminator were all given a chance to bring back some memories, making this film is welcome and enjoyably nostalgic trip. It proves that there’s still some life and good times left in the series, and if the creative talents can keep quality to this level I, for one, would certainly welcome another slice of pie in the future.
The new film reunites the entire cast from the original three films and centers around the gang’s 13 year high school reunion. Life has definitely taken them all in some unexpected directions. Jim (Jason Biggs) is married to Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), and are now parents to a little boy and enjoying a comfortable, if a tad uneventful, suburban lifestyle.
Oz (Chris Klein), is a successful Los Angeles sportscaster as well as a recent contestant on a popular national dance show. He spends his time mixing with celebrities and indulging a girlfriend who loves to party just a bit too much. Meanwhile, Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), is happily married but needs an escape from a domestic routine that includes watching reality shows with his wife.
Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) fancies himself a nomadic spirit who wanders the globe from one esoteric adventure to another, still looking for his true love while Stiffler (Seann William Scott), works at a prestigious firm and remains the guy who never misses an opportunity to wisecrack or sexually harass any female who crosses his path.
As reunion-type movies go, there are the expected moments of awkwardness and hilarity. And of course, it wouldn’t be an American Pie movie without moments of ridiculously crude antics, mainly from Stifler. What separates the film from the bevy of raunchy comedies that flooded the market after the success of the initial film, is that there is some maturity amongst the mayhem.
In between the outrageous antics, the various characters are forced to take deep examinations of their lives since graduation and in some cases grow up for the first time in their lives. Oz must comes to grips with his feelings for his former girlfriend Heather (Mena Suvari), as does Kevin when his former flame Vicky (Tara Reid), returns to town for the reunion. Jim and Michelle have to find a way to bring some sexual spark back into their lives while Finch needs to accept the mundane reality of his. And Stifler. Well, let’s just say he needs to find his true calling.
What really sold the film for me was not just the great chemistry between the cast but the way the script deftly moved the raunchy comedy along while combining character development and depth that is not normally found in films of this type. As I watched, I found that I had really missed this crew of unlikely friends, and really enjoyed catching up with them even when they were not extricating themselves from one over-the-top situation after another.
While the film did drag a bit slightly there was always an outrageous moment right around the corner that had the theater errupting in laughter or shrieking in disbelief. This film is rated R for good reason. The cast worked really great together and it was especially nice to see Klein back in the mix, as he had been noticeably absent from the last film in no small part due to his offscreen issues.
Eugene Levy and Jennifer Coolidge (Stifler’s mom) have some absolutely hysterical moments in film especially when Mr. Levenstein, widowed now for three years, decides to cut loose at a party and we get to see has wild side. I would also encourage viewers to make sure to stay through the credits as there is more comedy from this pair that must not be missed.
The supporting characters from the previous films were all given their moments to shine even if it is just in a small cameo. Shannon Elizabeth, Natasha Lyonne, John Cho, and of course, the Sherminator were all given a chance to bring back some memories, making this film is welcome and enjoyably nostalgic trip. It proves that there’s still some life and good times left in the series, and if the creative talents can keep quality to this level I, for one, would certainly welcome another slice of pie in the future.
Practice to Deceive
Book
#1 New York Times bestselling author and Queen of True Crime Ann Rule delivers another gripping...
True crime murder
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Feb 3, 2019
Wonderful, whimsical film for kids and adults alike
As I was perusing various "Top Films of 2018" lists, one surprising film kept showing up on these lists, so I thought I'd better check it out.
And I'm glad I did for PADDINGTON 2 is a charming family film that entranced me from beginning to end with wonderful performances and a charm and whimsy that hooked me from start to finish.
A follow-up to the moderate 2014 hit (based on the beloved children's books series) about a Peruvian bear that heads to 19th Century London seeking adventure - and finds a family - PADDINGTON 2 follows said Bear as he is caught up in a robbery and is mistakenly jailed for the crime. Can Paddington make friends with the burly inmates in the prison? Can the Brown family help find the true perpetrator of the crime and help spring Paddington? Can faith and love triumph in a time of skepticism and darkness?
It's a family film, what do you think?
The joy in this film is in the telling - and Paul King (returning as Director/Writer) does a wonderful job telling a joyous, family-friendly story without diving into sacrine-ness (is that a word? It is now) and schmaltz. He tells the story with a sly wink in his eye and dives deep into whimsical detail of late 19th century London - a London racing full throttle into the steam age. There is a light cyber-punk sensibility to the proceedings and this works wonderfully well.
As you would expect, King does a nice job getting the actors to click into the sensibilities and style of this film. Ben Wishaw is back as the voice of Paddington - and he is perfectly cast. Wishaw has a naivete and sense of wonder to his voice that serves the Paddington character well. Jim Broadbent, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins and Julie Walters all reprise their roles - in winning fashion. But it is the newcomers that shine. Brendan Gleeson shows off some comic chops as main prison bad guy "Knuckles" McGinty who forms an unlikely friendship/partnership with Paddington and, especially Hugh Grant as vain, egotistical actor Phoenix Buchanan. I won't spoil the antics of Grant's character but I have a feeling that Mr. Grant had as much fun bringing this character to screen as I did watching him.
Two final things - the finale really works for me as King sets up each character's "special skill" at the beginning of the film that they will need to bring to bear (no pun intended) during the action at the end. To often, character's and character threads are set up at the beginning of a film only to be abandoned by the end, so it is satisfying to me when King sets up items at the beginning of this film and then PAYS THEM OFF at the end.
And, finally, STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS. There is a scene in the credits that is as good as anything that is in the film. I won't spoil the fun for you, but want you to know about this so you won't miss it.
A wonderful, whimsical, time at the movies. If you have kids (5,6,7 years old), this is a MUST SEE. For the rest of you, if you're looking for fun escape from the world, this film will do it.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I'm glad I did for PADDINGTON 2 is a charming family film that entranced me from beginning to end with wonderful performances and a charm and whimsy that hooked me from start to finish.
A follow-up to the moderate 2014 hit (based on the beloved children's books series) about a Peruvian bear that heads to 19th Century London seeking adventure - and finds a family - PADDINGTON 2 follows said Bear as he is caught up in a robbery and is mistakenly jailed for the crime. Can Paddington make friends with the burly inmates in the prison? Can the Brown family help find the true perpetrator of the crime and help spring Paddington? Can faith and love triumph in a time of skepticism and darkness?
It's a family film, what do you think?
The joy in this film is in the telling - and Paul King (returning as Director/Writer) does a wonderful job telling a joyous, family-friendly story without diving into sacrine-ness (is that a word? It is now) and schmaltz. He tells the story with a sly wink in his eye and dives deep into whimsical detail of late 19th century London - a London racing full throttle into the steam age. There is a light cyber-punk sensibility to the proceedings and this works wonderfully well.
As you would expect, King does a nice job getting the actors to click into the sensibilities and style of this film. Ben Wishaw is back as the voice of Paddington - and he is perfectly cast. Wishaw has a naivete and sense of wonder to his voice that serves the Paddington character well. Jim Broadbent, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins and Julie Walters all reprise their roles - in winning fashion. But it is the newcomers that shine. Brendan Gleeson shows off some comic chops as main prison bad guy "Knuckles" McGinty who forms an unlikely friendship/partnership with Paddington and, especially Hugh Grant as vain, egotistical actor Phoenix Buchanan. I won't spoil the antics of Grant's character but I have a feeling that Mr. Grant had as much fun bringing this character to screen as I did watching him.
Two final things - the finale really works for me as King sets up each character's "special skill" at the beginning of the film that they will need to bring to bear (no pun intended) during the action at the end. To often, character's and character threads are set up at the beginning of a film only to be abandoned by the end, so it is satisfying to me when King sets up items at the beginning of this film and then PAYS THEM OFF at the end.
And, finally, STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS. There is a scene in the credits that is as good as anything that is in the film. I won't spoil the fun for you, but want you to know about this so you won't miss it.
A wonderful, whimsical, time at the movies. If you have kids (5,6,7 years old), this is a MUST SEE. For the rest of you, if you're looking for fun escape from the world, this film will do it.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Buster's Mal Heart (2016) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Remember before the digital revolution and on demand TV channels when you had to stay up late and watch the films shown after midnight to see anything outside of the mainstream? Quite often they were awful, cheap, rambling experiences that maybe had one or two memorable scenes, or something so weird that you had to find out if any of your friends had seen it. Well, this is one of those films, except it was made in 2017 and I saw it in 2020 on Netflix.
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
Rupert Falkes is a wealthy, (somewhat) self-made man. A British orphan, he came to America, charmed his way into Yale Law, and made a career as a successful lawyer. He also married well: the beautiful (and rich) Eleanor Phipps. Together, the pair had five sons (Harry, Will, Sam, Jack, and Tom) and a happy life. When Rupert dies of cancer, a woman comes forward, claiming to have had two sons with him as well. The revelation causes different reactions among Eleanor and all the Falkes boys (now men), setting off a chain of reactions throughout the privileged family.
I'll be honest; I requested this ARC solely because I enjoyed Reiger's previous novel, [b:The Divorce Papers|18142403|The Divorce Papers|Susan Rieger|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1378708022s/18142403.jpg|25489091], so much. I did not realize THE HEIRS was set in New York City and focused purely on a wealthy family--it seems like so many of these novels lately are tedious, and I can't find any connection to the characters.
And, truly, at first seemed it seemed like a boring look at a bunch of rich people. However, the novel becomes more interesting and nuanced as it progresses, with the viewpoints varying by chapter (and really within each chapter). The story is told by the people who were within Rupert Falkes' orbit. We hear from his wife, some of his sons, and past love interests of both Rupert and Eleanor. It turns out to be an effective way to tell the story, with bits and pieces of various stories coming out from the characters throughout the book, including about the possible illegitimate sons. (The focus is less on these two potential heirs than you would think, albeit their potential existence sort of kicks off the story.)
About halfway through, I found many of the characters to be petulant and annoying again--probably because we were in whiny middle son Sam's chapter. Truly, a lot of the people in this book are jerks. Sadly, Eleanor and Rupert's sons aren't always of the best character. Still, Eleanor is a fascinating person. She's strong, witty, and deep. She was definitely my favorite character in the novel, and any stories related to her were my favorite as well.
There is a lot of talk about money, class, and heritage in the novel. It's set in an earlier time period; it sometimes seems a bit much, but I suppose it's a realistic portrayal of wealthy New York in that era. Still, it is a lot of Jews versus Gentiles, rich versus poor, Yale versus Princeton.
I was a bit torn on this one for a bit, but I can't deny that I really enjoyed it, even if I didn't always like the characters. Besides, I was quite taken with Eleanor and even Anne (the wife of Eleanor's past love, Jim). Rieger is simply a good writer: her books are crisp and sharp. While on the surface the novel seems to be about a bunch of rich people, it also depicts the ties that bind us; there's meaning behind the sniping. There are touching moments in this novel, heartbreaking ones, and even funny ones. I didn't love it quite as much as THE DIVORCE PAPERS, and would probably rate as it 3.75 stars, but I'll round up to 4 stars here.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Librarything (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 05/23/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
I'll be honest; I requested this ARC solely because I enjoyed Reiger's previous novel, [b:The Divorce Papers|18142403|The Divorce Papers|Susan Rieger|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1378708022s/18142403.jpg|25489091], so much. I did not realize THE HEIRS was set in New York City and focused purely on a wealthy family--it seems like so many of these novels lately are tedious, and I can't find any connection to the characters.
And, truly, at first seemed it seemed like a boring look at a bunch of rich people. However, the novel becomes more interesting and nuanced as it progresses, with the viewpoints varying by chapter (and really within each chapter). The story is told by the people who were within Rupert Falkes' orbit. We hear from his wife, some of his sons, and past love interests of both Rupert and Eleanor. It turns out to be an effective way to tell the story, with bits and pieces of various stories coming out from the characters throughout the book, including about the possible illegitimate sons. (The focus is less on these two potential heirs than you would think, albeit their potential existence sort of kicks off the story.)
About halfway through, I found many of the characters to be petulant and annoying again--probably because we were in whiny middle son Sam's chapter. Truly, a lot of the people in this book are jerks. Sadly, Eleanor and Rupert's sons aren't always of the best character. Still, Eleanor is a fascinating person. She's strong, witty, and deep. She was definitely my favorite character in the novel, and any stories related to her were my favorite as well.
There is a lot of talk about money, class, and heritage in the novel. It's set in an earlier time period; it sometimes seems a bit much, but I suppose it's a realistic portrayal of wealthy New York in that era. Still, it is a lot of Jews versus Gentiles, rich versus poor, Yale versus Princeton.
I was a bit torn on this one for a bit, but I can't deny that I really enjoyed it, even if I didn't always like the characters. Besides, I was quite taken with Eleanor and even Anne (the wife of Eleanor's past love, Jim). Rieger is simply a good writer: her books are crisp and sharp. While on the surface the novel seems to be about a bunch of rich people, it also depicts the ties that bind us; there's meaning behind the sniping. There are touching moments in this novel, heartbreaking ones, and even funny ones. I didn't love it quite as much as THE DIVORCE PAPERS, and would probably rate as it 3.75 stars, but I'll round up to 4 stars here.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Librarything (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 05/23/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;