Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Rambo's Last Hurrah, Decent Action Flick
Rambo: Last Blood is a 2019 action movie directed by Adrian Grunberg, with screenplay written by both Sylvester Stallone and Matthew Cirulnick and story by Stallone and Dan Gordon. It was produced by Millennium Media, Balboa Productions and Templeton Media and distributed by Lionsgate with producers Avi Lerner, Kevin King Templeton, Yariv Lerner and Les Weldon. The film stars Sylvester Stallone, Paz Vega, Sergio Peris-Mencheta, and Adriana Barraza.
In Bowie, Arizona on his father's horse ranch John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) lives with his old friend Maria (Adriana Barraza) and her granddaughter Gabriela (Yvette Monreal), eleven years after the events in Burma. Against Rambo and Maria's wishes, Gabriela ventures to Mexico to find her estranged father when her friend Gizelle finds his location. In Mexico she is drugged and kidnapped by a Mexican Cartel and now Rambo must do everything he can to save her.
I have to say that before I saw this movie I was hearing bad things from reviewers and critics. That made me lower expectations before I saw it but what I took away from it was that it was going to be lacking story wise but definitely shouldn't be lacking in action. Then I was very surprised to learn that the creator of Rambo said that the movie wasn't good. Now I wasn't sure if I was going to enjoy the movie. After watching it, I have to say that this movie was good. I have to be honest and say that usually I'm a sucker for revenge movies but this movie was better than what I thought it would be. The plot, of course was very simple but for the story it was trying to tell, it didn't need to be complicated. The acting was alright, some actors could have done a better job. Stallone did a decent job reprising John Rambo. The setting when they travel to Mexico was pretty realistic and I really liked his ranch in Arizona that was the backdrop for the third act of the movie. The action was really brutal and gory which was expected as the last installment in the franchise Rambo was also equally brutal. All in all I thought this movie was pretty good, I give it a 7/10.
In Bowie, Arizona on his father's horse ranch John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) lives with his old friend Maria (Adriana Barraza) and her granddaughter Gabriela (Yvette Monreal), eleven years after the events in Burma. Against Rambo and Maria's wishes, Gabriela ventures to Mexico to find her estranged father when her friend Gizelle finds his location. In Mexico she is drugged and kidnapped by a Mexican Cartel and now Rambo must do everything he can to save her.
I have to say that before I saw this movie I was hearing bad things from reviewers and critics. That made me lower expectations before I saw it but what I took away from it was that it was going to be lacking story wise but definitely shouldn't be lacking in action. Then I was very surprised to learn that the creator of Rambo said that the movie wasn't good. Now I wasn't sure if I was going to enjoy the movie. After watching it, I have to say that this movie was good. I have to be honest and say that usually I'm a sucker for revenge movies but this movie was better than what I thought it would be. The plot, of course was very simple but for the story it was trying to tell, it didn't need to be complicated. The acting was alright, some actors could have done a better job. Stallone did a decent job reprising John Rambo. The setting when they travel to Mexico was pretty realistic and I really liked his ranch in Arizona that was the backdrop for the third act of the movie. The action was really brutal and gory which was expected as the last installment in the franchise Rambo was also equally brutal. All in all I thought this movie was pretty good, I give it a 7/10.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 5, 2021
James Gunn returns with the sequel to 2016’s Suicide Squad. This time, the nefarious company woman Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), returns to Belle Reve to recruit the next iteration of Task Force X. Initially, we are introduced to the new recruits: Savant (Michael Rooker), Blackguard (Pete Davidson), Javelin (Flula Borg), Mongal (Mayling Ng), T.D.K. (Nathan Fillion) and The Weasel (Sean Gunn). We meet our favorites from the first film: Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney). They have signed on to be dropped into a small island nation, Corto Maltese.
This country, just taken over by a military coup has a lab with a 30-year secret weapon. Ms. Waller offers them years off each team member’s sentence to “Save the World”. Or, in this case, infiltrate Corto Maltese to find and destroy the project. Our hapless but highly skilled group lands and takes on heavy fire.
Meanwhile, we have Team B led by Bloodsport (Idris Elba), Peacemaker (John Cena), Ratcatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian), King Shark (The physical, John Economos with the voice of Sylvester Stallone). As the separate teams go forth and bond in violence, we find out more about their personal childhood traumas that made them the criminals they have become.
This sequel has James Gunn’s DNA all over the film. He raised the bar from the first film by providing bright, visual treats. The action is violent in a cartoonish manner that buffers the impact when one looks at the many ways one can dispatch a human. The story goes from sarcasm, dry wit, demented clown to the stooges’ physical hilarity. As we watch the Squad fight their way across the island, there are points where these characters are skilled killers despite the humor in their murderous madness.
I was laughing throughout the film, it certainly felt like a panacea for these challenging times. Pay attention, there are little moments of snappy comebacks that feel like they’re from old-school Mad Magazine. The pace runs steadily which helps the dissonance become more impactful. The Suicide Squad was not boring, it was very entertaining and such a campy ride. FYI: there are TWO after-credit scenes.
The Soundtrack is so very good from the first shot, to the after credit, shotsThis Summer Blockbuster certainly delivers the entertainment.
4.75 out of 5 Stars
This country, just taken over by a military coup has a lab with a 30-year secret weapon. Ms. Waller offers them years off each team member’s sentence to “Save the World”. Or, in this case, infiltrate Corto Maltese to find and destroy the project. Our hapless but highly skilled group lands and takes on heavy fire.
Meanwhile, we have Team B led by Bloodsport (Idris Elba), Peacemaker (John Cena), Ratcatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian), King Shark (The physical, John Economos with the voice of Sylvester Stallone). As the separate teams go forth and bond in violence, we find out more about their personal childhood traumas that made them the criminals they have become.
This sequel has James Gunn’s DNA all over the film. He raised the bar from the first film by providing bright, visual treats. The action is violent in a cartoonish manner that buffers the impact when one looks at the many ways one can dispatch a human. The story goes from sarcasm, dry wit, demented clown to the stooges’ physical hilarity. As we watch the Squad fight their way across the island, there are points where these characters are skilled killers despite the humor in their murderous madness.
I was laughing throughout the film, it certainly felt like a panacea for these challenging times. Pay attention, there are little moments of snappy comebacks that feel like they’re from old-school Mad Magazine. The pace runs steadily which helps the dissonance become more impactful. The Suicide Squad was not boring, it was very entertaining and such a campy ride. FYI: there are TWO after-credit scenes.
The Soundtrack is so very good from the first shot, to the after credit, shotsThis Summer Blockbuster certainly delivers the entertainment.
4.75 out of 5 Stars
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1408 (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: With the story of a sceptic investigating paranormal events but then ends up stuck in these paranormal events he so very much doesn’t believe in, is a very clichéd story. This has most of this and adds in that he is a writer with a dark past involving loss you know where this is going. Mixing it all together we get the idea of redemption for the mistakes we may have done in life. One weak point of this film is that there are two endings that paint a very different picture of the events that happen in the film, I personally prefer the Director’s Cut as I find it has more answer than the Theatrical Cut. (8/10)
Actor Reviews
John Cusack: Mike Enslin after suffering a personal loss Mike travels around writing about so called haunted hotel and location, bringing out a string of top 10 books looking at his experiences or lack thereof. Mike gets a postcard and against all the advice of the hotel manager he enters the room 1408, were he really gets put to the test. Mike starts off being distant from people, be it fans or his general style of conversation, but soon after the events start happening he changes too quickly for what his character has been through. John does a good job with the role as most of the film is solely around him. (8/10)
cusack
Samuel L. Jackson: Gerald Olin the manager of the Dolphin hotel trying to protect Mike from entering the room with all kinds of bribes, he tells the full history of the room but unfortunately lets him stay in the room. Good supporting performance from Jackson rarely seen, he is the dominant persona you would expect to see. (8/10)
sam
Director Review: Mikael Hafstrom – Creates some very good scares and keeps you guessing on what is going on, add in what I think is the better ending you get a very good piece of direction. (8/10)
Horror: Has some solid scares and some you really don’t see coming along with some nicely built up ones. (9/10)
Mystery: You are constantly wondering what is going on, but a lot is explained at the end. (9/10)
Thriller: Keeps you at the edge of your seat just wait to know what happens next. (9/10)
Settings: The hotel room feels very ordinary but once things starting to happen it turns into a nightmare, working very well for the genre. (9/10)
Special Effects: Strong special effects used throughout. (9/10)
Suggestion: If you are a fan of horror you will enjoy this, if you are a fan of Stephen King you will enjoy this otherwise this one isn’t really for you. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The vents scene.
Worst Part: The two different endings can confuse when talking about this film with others.
Scariest Scene: Vent scene.
Believability: I give this a one because there are people like Mike you investigate the paranormal, but what happens isn’t believable. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $131,998,242
Budget: $25 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the terrifying story by Stephen King
Overall: Good Atmospheric Horror
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/28/1408-2007/
Actor Reviews
John Cusack: Mike Enslin after suffering a personal loss Mike travels around writing about so called haunted hotel and location, bringing out a string of top 10 books looking at his experiences or lack thereof. Mike gets a postcard and against all the advice of the hotel manager he enters the room 1408, were he really gets put to the test. Mike starts off being distant from people, be it fans or his general style of conversation, but soon after the events start happening he changes too quickly for what his character has been through. John does a good job with the role as most of the film is solely around him. (8/10)
cusack
Samuel L. Jackson: Gerald Olin the manager of the Dolphin hotel trying to protect Mike from entering the room with all kinds of bribes, he tells the full history of the room but unfortunately lets him stay in the room. Good supporting performance from Jackson rarely seen, he is the dominant persona you would expect to see. (8/10)
sam
Director Review: Mikael Hafstrom – Creates some very good scares and keeps you guessing on what is going on, add in what I think is the better ending you get a very good piece of direction. (8/10)
Horror: Has some solid scares and some you really don’t see coming along with some nicely built up ones. (9/10)
Mystery: You are constantly wondering what is going on, but a lot is explained at the end. (9/10)
Thriller: Keeps you at the edge of your seat just wait to know what happens next. (9/10)
Settings: The hotel room feels very ordinary but once things starting to happen it turns into a nightmare, working very well for the genre. (9/10)
Special Effects: Strong special effects used throughout. (9/10)
Suggestion: If you are a fan of horror you will enjoy this, if you are a fan of Stephen King you will enjoy this otherwise this one isn’t really for you. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The vents scene.
Worst Part: The two different endings can confuse when talking about this film with others.
Scariest Scene: Vent scene.
Believability: I give this a one because there are people like Mike you investigate the paranormal, but what happens isn’t believable. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $131,998,242
Budget: $25 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the terrifying story by Stephen King
Overall: Good Atmospheric Horror
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/28/1408-2007/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated War Horse (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Steven Spielberg is undoubtedly one of the world’s most loved directors and is without question, the king of blockbuster cinema. He thrilled us with dinosaurs in 1993’s blockbuster Jurassic Park, had us in tears with E.T. and had our hearts pumping out of our chests with the Indiana Jones series.
However, here, the ‘king’ relaxes a little and delves into proper old fashioned story telling with the emotional rollercoaster that is War Horse. Teaming up with John Williams once again, the duo delivers a beautiful score to accompany a beautifully shot film.
Jeremy Irvine stars alongside a full roster of celebrities including Harry Potter’s David Thewlis and Thor’s Tom Hiddlestone in what can only be described as one of Spielberg’s greatest films.
The film opens with some awe inspiring shots of the Devon countryside, with Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) staring, masterfully at two horses in a field. Fast forward a few years and his alcoholic father Ted, played wonderfully by Peter Mullen purchases one of them in an auction, hoping to turn it into a plough horse. This horse becomes the focus of the entire film and is nicknamed Joey by Irvine’s character.
After the usual, Spielberg sentimentality, Joey is summoned to help the English army in the First World War. Obviously, this doesn’t go down too well with Albert and he promises that one day, they will find each other. It’s hard to describe just how heart-breaking these scenes are, as Joey is led away by his new trainer (Tom Hiddlestone) and all Albert can do is watch.
After being defeated by the Germans in a deadly ambush, Albert is informed that Hiddlestone’s character, Captain Nicholls has been killed in battle. Assuming the worst, Albert starts to prepare to either reunite with his beloved steed, or discover whether or not he has perished.
Spielberg has created a shockingly beautiful film as Joey loses Captain Nicholls and roams the countryside unmanned trying to escape the clutches of the German army. Unfortunately, on occasion, he runs right into them and becomes an artillery horse, pulling canons and other weapons.
The shots of no-man’s land as the horse time and time again escapes are breath-taking and show the scale of the destruction like nothing I’ve ever seen. Spielberg has a knack for scale and in War Horse, this is exceptionally poignant; shots of a horse graveyard and the grey barren landscape are examples of fine film-making. To say you’ll be in tears is somewhat of an understatement as Joey, terrified from the ordeal he is being taken through loses comrades, crashes through barbed wire and nearly gives up on life.
This coupled with John Williams best score since Jurassic Park ensures that this is a subtle blockbuster to be enjoyed by all.
However, the film isn’t perfect. On occasion, it delves into unnecessary sentimentality and Spielberg must’ve had a book of movie clichés with him at some points during the shoot, like the cheesy sunset ending and the token pulling through in the face of adversity. These are, however, small points in a film which is a spectacle to behold.
The animals no doubt steal the show, but their human counterparts do well in their roles. Jeremy Irvine is fabulous and was an unusual but totally justified choice for the part. David Thewlis shows how versatile he really is as an actor, playing the heartless landlord, ready to ship the Narracott family out of their farm.
War Horse is a film which hits with a huge dose of emotion. John Williams and Steven Spielberg are an unstoppable combination and what the film does best is show off its directors prowess as an artist, not a film-maker. The special effects are sparse because the story doesn’t require them, but when they are there, such as in the battle scenes, they help the story along, instead of hindering it.
It may not quite match the dizzy heights of Schindler’s List and Jurassic Park as Spielberg’s best, but it fits in between excellent Spielberg and spectacular Spielberg. Take some tissues and prepare yourself and you’ll be all set.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/22/review-war-horse-2012/
However, here, the ‘king’ relaxes a little and delves into proper old fashioned story telling with the emotional rollercoaster that is War Horse. Teaming up with John Williams once again, the duo delivers a beautiful score to accompany a beautifully shot film.
Jeremy Irvine stars alongside a full roster of celebrities including Harry Potter’s David Thewlis and Thor’s Tom Hiddlestone in what can only be described as one of Spielberg’s greatest films.
The film opens with some awe inspiring shots of the Devon countryside, with Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) staring, masterfully at two horses in a field. Fast forward a few years and his alcoholic father Ted, played wonderfully by Peter Mullen purchases one of them in an auction, hoping to turn it into a plough horse. This horse becomes the focus of the entire film and is nicknamed Joey by Irvine’s character.
After the usual, Spielberg sentimentality, Joey is summoned to help the English army in the First World War. Obviously, this doesn’t go down too well with Albert and he promises that one day, they will find each other. It’s hard to describe just how heart-breaking these scenes are, as Joey is led away by his new trainer (Tom Hiddlestone) and all Albert can do is watch.
After being defeated by the Germans in a deadly ambush, Albert is informed that Hiddlestone’s character, Captain Nicholls has been killed in battle. Assuming the worst, Albert starts to prepare to either reunite with his beloved steed, or discover whether or not he has perished.
Spielberg has created a shockingly beautiful film as Joey loses Captain Nicholls and roams the countryside unmanned trying to escape the clutches of the German army. Unfortunately, on occasion, he runs right into them and becomes an artillery horse, pulling canons and other weapons.
The shots of no-man’s land as the horse time and time again escapes are breath-taking and show the scale of the destruction like nothing I’ve ever seen. Spielberg has a knack for scale and in War Horse, this is exceptionally poignant; shots of a horse graveyard and the grey barren landscape are examples of fine film-making. To say you’ll be in tears is somewhat of an understatement as Joey, terrified from the ordeal he is being taken through loses comrades, crashes through barbed wire and nearly gives up on life.
This coupled with John Williams best score since Jurassic Park ensures that this is a subtle blockbuster to be enjoyed by all.
However, the film isn’t perfect. On occasion, it delves into unnecessary sentimentality and Spielberg must’ve had a book of movie clichés with him at some points during the shoot, like the cheesy sunset ending and the token pulling through in the face of adversity. These are, however, small points in a film which is a spectacle to behold.
The animals no doubt steal the show, but their human counterparts do well in their roles. Jeremy Irvine is fabulous and was an unusual but totally justified choice for the part. David Thewlis shows how versatile he really is as an actor, playing the heartless landlord, ready to ship the Narracott family out of their farm.
War Horse is a film which hits with a huge dose of emotion. John Williams and Steven Spielberg are an unstoppable combination and what the film does best is show off its directors prowess as an artist, not a film-maker. The special effects are sparse because the story doesn’t require them, but when they are there, such as in the battle scenes, they help the story along, instead of hindering it.
It may not quite match the dizzy heights of Schindler’s List and Jurassic Park as Spielberg’s best, but it fits in between excellent Spielberg and spectacular Spielberg. Take some tissues and prepare yourself and you’ll be all set.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/22/review-war-horse-2012/
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated The Book of Kings in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – The Book of Kings Has a Few Gems and a Few Warts
Contains spoilers, click to show
Unlike other short story anthologies I could mention, this one wasn’t mostly horrible. Instead, the stories inside run the gamut from stupid to brilliant and from annoying to nothing special to fun and memorable. A little something for everyone, then.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Between Two Kingdoms in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book was such a unique read for me that I can't recall reading anything of this nature, with the one exception of The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan, which is also allegorical in nature. The story in Between Two Kingdoms is told as a story that I think young children could appreciate just as well as adults because of the simplistic nature of the text. What intrigued me about this book was trying to figure out what each element of the story represented in reference to the Bible. Some things were obvious, such as the King being God, the Good Prince being Jesus Christ, and the River being the Holy Spirit. The interpretation of many elements though are biased according to how the author, Joe Boyd, interprets Bibical scripture, such as making the River female in nature, which would indicate Boyd's interpretation that the Holy Spirit is also female, which I do not agree with. Another interpretation that I found questionable was the Dark Prince and his true name, Adam. I could be wrong, but that tells me that the author interprets the origin of the Devil as the first man, Adam. I was completely baffled by the language that the Phantom Messengers spoke and what it was supposed to represent.
Many elements of the story were quite imaginative and fascinating, such as the behavior of the River, which was as playful and joyous as it could be peaceful and comforting. I love how the children could use such a simple thing as mirrors to destroy the Phantom Messengers by showing them their true selves. The Long Night was rife with metaphor, and I love good metaphors.
On the whole, I think this story is a great conversation piece for anyone interested in puzzling out the meanings behind the allegory.
Many elements of the story were quite imaginative and fascinating, such as the behavior of the River, which was as playful and joyous as it could be peaceful and comforting. I love how the children could use such a simple thing as mirrors to destroy the Phantom Messengers by showing them their true selves. The Long Night was rife with metaphor, and I love good metaphors.
On the whole, I think this story is a great conversation piece for anyone interested in puzzling out the meanings behind the allegory.
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated Dauntless (Valiant Hearts, #1) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Medieval England, the ruthless King John sits on the throne. And Lady Merry Ellison has but one mission: To see to the safety of her “men”.
Set in the year 1216, England is in ruin. The nation is divided, scores of outlaws live in the forest and they do what they must to survive. Lady Merry will do anything to protect the orphans that make up their band known as “The Ghosts of Farthingale Forest”. Timothy Grey longs to become someone of power and authority. So he sets out to capture the ghosts, not knowing who their leader is. Will he turn in the ghosts and earn approval from his master? Or will he follow his heart and the leading of God?
Dauntless is the first book that I have read by Dina Sleiman, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was very engaging and quite the page turner. I loved how she used older English, but not so “olde” that I couldn’t understand the book. The “Historical Notes” were very informative and helpful to read. I wish I would have read it first, even thought there are a few spoilers in it. Her portrayal of the supernatural was very vivid. I liked it a lot! This story was a good reminder that things happen in our lives that we don’t always understand. But we must remember that God has a purpose for everything. Although we may never know why, we must trust Him and know that He truly knows best. Yes, I know, easier said than done. But in this story, the journey of reestablishing faith in God was amazing to behold and I pray that it brings you hope.
I received a free digital edition of Dauntless from Bethany House Publishers through NetGalley in exchange for my honest review.
Set in the year 1216, England is in ruin. The nation is divided, scores of outlaws live in the forest and they do what they must to survive. Lady Merry will do anything to protect the orphans that make up their band known as “The Ghosts of Farthingale Forest”. Timothy Grey longs to become someone of power and authority. So he sets out to capture the ghosts, not knowing who their leader is. Will he turn in the ghosts and earn approval from his master? Or will he follow his heart and the leading of God?
Dauntless is the first book that I have read by Dina Sleiman, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was very engaging and quite the page turner. I loved how she used older English, but not so “olde” that I couldn’t understand the book. The “Historical Notes” were very informative and helpful to read. I wish I would have read it first, even thought there are a few spoilers in it. Her portrayal of the supernatural was very vivid. I liked it a lot! This story was a good reminder that things happen in our lives that we don’t always understand. But we must remember that God has a purpose for everything. Although we may never know why, we must trust Him and know that He truly knows best. Yes, I know, easier said than done. But in this story, the journey of reestablishing faith in God was amazing to behold and I pray that it brings you hope.
I received a free digital edition of Dauntless from Bethany House Publishers through NetGalley in exchange for my honest review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated The Bag Man (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Sometimes it sucks to be a delivery guy when you don’t know what you are
carrying in a tightly sealed leather bag. Anything can happen when too many
people are interested in what The Bag Man is carrying when it gets a
limited theatrical run starting Feb 28th.
When Jack (John Cusack) is a fixer/hitman under the employ of Dragna
(Robert De Niro), a crime lord — tasked to bring a leather bag to a seedy
hotel — the people he runs into are more shadier than he is. All he has to
do is to wait for the arrival of this gangster and not look at what’s
inside.
Both the movie and night is long while Jack fends for himself. His dealings
with the motel manager (beautifully played by Crispin Glover) is far more
interesting than the lady of the night, Rivka (Rebecca Da Costa), he meets.
Together what they end up in is a cat and mouse game of nearly everybody
from this sleepy hole-in-the-wall after them. Everyone is interested in
what the bag contains, and this Macguffin never strays far from the plot.
Even though the concept of what’s in the bag is hardly original, this
narrative device will keep some people — characters included — invested
in wondering what’s so important about it. When the contents are revealed,
will what’s revealed be King Midas’ gold or the evils from Pandora’s Box?
This loose thriller has its moments where viewers will be glued to the
suspense but ultimately, it’s this movie’s pacing that slows the action
down. Losing 10-15 minutes might help in keeping the tale tight.
That can help everyone, audience included, from not losing interest. Sooner
or later, the cat has to be let out of the bag.
carrying in a tightly sealed leather bag. Anything can happen when too many
people are interested in what The Bag Man is carrying when it gets a
limited theatrical run starting Feb 28th.
When Jack (John Cusack) is a fixer/hitman under the employ of Dragna
(Robert De Niro), a crime lord — tasked to bring a leather bag to a seedy
hotel — the people he runs into are more shadier than he is. All he has to
do is to wait for the arrival of this gangster and not look at what’s
inside.
Both the movie and night is long while Jack fends for himself. His dealings
with the motel manager (beautifully played by Crispin Glover) is far more
interesting than the lady of the night, Rivka (Rebecca Da Costa), he meets.
Together what they end up in is a cat and mouse game of nearly everybody
from this sleepy hole-in-the-wall after them. Everyone is interested in
what the bag contains, and this Macguffin never strays far from the plot.
Even though the concept of what’s in the bag is hardly original, this
narrative device will keep some people — characters included — invested
in wondering what’s so important about it. When the contents are revealed,
will what’s revealed be King Midas’ gold or the evils from Pandora’s Box?
This loose thriller has its moments where viewers will be glued to the
suspense but ultimately, it’s this movie’s pacing that slows the action
down. Losing 10-15 minutes might help in keeping the tale tight.
That can help everyone, audience included, from not losing interest. Sooner
or later, the cat has to be let out of the bag.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) in Movies
Oct 15, 2019
In “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil”; Angelina Jolie returns as the title character to the smash Live-Action film based on the classic Fairy Tale and Animated film.
In the years since the last film ended; Aurora (Elle Fanning) has relished in her role as Princess over the Moors and all of the enchanted creatures that live within it. When she accepts a proposal from Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson), this sets off a chain of celebratory events as they all prepare for the big day which will unite the two lands.
Phillip’s parents King John (Robert Lindsay) and Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer) are eager for the union while Maleficent strongly opposes it and tells Aurora that there will be no wedding. When Aurora persists; Maleficent reluctantly accepts an invitation to dinner at the Castle where things soon go horribly wrong and Maleficent is accused of putting a curse on the King.
Injured while fleeing, Maleficent is wounded and takin in by others of her kind who are preparing for war against the humans as a dark and dangerous plan is underway and the survival of the enchanted creatures is threatened.
The film then becomes a tense adventure with plenty of action, magic, and fantasy which is a nice framework for the great visual effects of the film.
I had been concerned that the film might be too dark for the usual audience for this type of film and there are moments where my concerns are validated. However there is much more charm, fantasy and wonder in the film and if anyone has ever read the original Grimm Fairy Tales; they will know that this is considerably toned down compared to what they offered.
The film has some great visuals to it but they never overshadow the characters in the film as Jolie seems to be taking gleeful delight in playing the title character but allows herself to have some fun with the character at times which helps her emerge as a well-rounded character versus being a staple Fairy Tale Villain.
The film may take a bit of time getting up to the main events but it does so to give more time for the characters to develop which helps them stand out from the usual good/bad monikers given to many fantasy characters.
The supporting cast is solid especially the performances by Pfeiffer and Chiwetel Ejiofor who add much to the complexity of the film and also invoke many themes of discussion that mirrors what is happening in much of society today.
In the end the film delivers a strong performance by Jolie and plenty of magic to make this a modern Fairy Tale Disney classic in the making.
3.5 stars out of 5.
In the years since the last film ended; Aurora (Elle Fanning) has relished in her role as Princess over the Moors and all of the enchanted creatures that live within it. When she accepts a proposal from Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson), this sets off a chain of celebratory events as they all prepare for the big day which will unite the two lands.
Phillip’s parents King John (Robert Lindsay) and Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer) are eager for the union while Maleficent strongly opposes it and tells Aurora that there will be no wedding. When Aurora persists; Maleficent reluctantly accepts an invitation to dinner at the Castle where things soon go horribly wrong and Maleficent is accused of putting a curse on the King.
Injured while fleeing, Maleficent is wounded and takin in by others of her kind who are preparing for war against the humans as a dark and dangerous plan is underway and the survival of the enchanted creatures is threatened.
The film then becomes a tense adventure with plenty of action, magic, and fantasy which is a nice framework for the great visual effects of the film.
I had been concerned that the film might be too dark for the usual audience for this type of film and there are moments where my concerns are validated. However there is much more charm, fantasy and wonder in the film and if anyone has ever read the original Grimm Fairy Tales; they will know that this is considerably toned down compared to what they offered.
The film has some great visuals to it but they never overshadow the characters in the film as Jolie seems to be taking gleeful delight in playing the title character but allows herself to have some fun with the character at times which helps her emerge as a well-rounded character versus being a staple Fairy Tale Villain.
The film may take a bit of time getting up to the main events but it does so to give more time for the characters to develop which helps them stand out from the usual good/bad monikers given to many fantasy characters.
The supporting cast is solid especially the performances by Pfeiffer and Chiwetel Ejiofor who add much to the complexity of the film and also invoke many themes of discussion that mirrors what is happening in much of society today.
In the end the film delivers a strong performance by Jolie and plenty of magic to make this a modern Fairy Tale Disney classic in the making.
3.5 stars out of 5.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) in Movies
Apr 2, 2021
Could have used more Kong versus Godzilla
If you are going to sit down and watch a movie that is entitled GODZILLA vs. KONG, you pretty much know what you are going to get, the highest your expectation should be is a “pretty fun B picture” with a giant Gorilla and a giant Lizard punching it out.
And…that is pretty much what you get…though the “laws of diminishing returns” is catching up to this franchise.
It all started with the reboot of GODZILLA in 2014 - a better than B “B Movie” that introduced audiences to Monarch and the Monsters they were following. This was followed up by the “very much a B Movie” KONG: SKULL ISLAND where Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman and a host of others run around, getting picked off one-by-one in an enjoyable romp and hopes remained high for the ongoing Kong/Godzilla “Universe”.
Unfortunately, 2019’s GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS was a step down and the franchise showed signs of weakness with weaker plot lines…even weaker human characters…and overblown special effects.
Next came this film, GODZILLA vs. KONG - it was supposed to be released in theaters last summer, but because of the pandemic made it’s theatrical release at the same time it was shown on HBO Max (where I viewed it) - and I’m glad they did that, for if I would have shelled out money in a movie theater to check out this mess, I would have been angry, indeed.
GODZILLA vs. KONG follows, unfortunately, the trend started by GODZILLA: KING OF THE THE MONSTERS in that it has overblown CGI action with very little in the way of coherent plot and characters that you couldn’t care less about. It’s a mess of a movie that strings together a slim plot to get from one CGI battle to another.
But…if it has CGI Giant Gorilla on CGI Radioactive Lizard fighting in it…it should be fine, right? Well…that’s where Director Adam Wingard (YOU’RE NEXT) really fails, for a movie called GODZILLA vs. KONG has very little Kong fighting Godzilla in it…so one cannot even get too excited by that.
To be fair to this film, it doesn’t try to be anything more than it is intended to be - a “B” flick with giant monsters fighting each other, but…it only manages to be a B- flick at best. So, feel free to kick back and watch the CGI action, you’ll enjoy most of it - just don’t spend too much time looking for plot or characters that you care about.
And…unfortunately…it’s making me care less and less about future sequels - or the future of the Kong/Godzilla Universe.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And…that is pretty much what you get…though the “laws of diminishing returns” is catching up to this franchise.
It all started with the reboot of GODZILLA in 2014 - a better than B “B Movie” that introduced audiences to Monarch and the Monsters they were following. This was followed up by the “very much a B Movie” KONG: SKULL ISLAND where Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman and a host of others run around, getting picked off one-by-one in an enjoyable romp and hopes remained high for the ongoing Kong/Godzilla “Universe”.
Unfortunately, 2019’s GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS was a step down and the franchise showed signs of weakness with weaker plot lines…even weaker human characters…and overblown special effects.
Next came this film, GODZILLA vs. KONG - it was supposed to be released in theaters last summer, but because of the pandemic made it’s theatrical release at the same time it was shown on HBO Max (where I viewed it) - and I’m glad they did that, for if I would have shelled out money in a movie theater to check out this mess, I would have been angry, indeed.
GODZILLA vs. KONG follows, unfortunately, the trend started by GODZILLA: KING OF THE THE MONSTERS in that it has overblown CGI action with very little in the way of coherent plot and characters that you couldn’t care less about. It’s a mess of a movie that strings together a slim plot to get from one CGI battle to another.
But…if it has CGI Giant Gorilla on CGI Radioactive Lizard fighting in it…it should be fine, right? Well…that’s where Director Adam Wingard (YOU’RE NEXT) really fails, for a movie called GODZILLA vs. KONG has very little Kong fighting Godzilla in it…so one cannot even get too excited by that.
To be fair to this film, it doesn’t try to be anything more than it is intended to be - a “B” flick with giant monsters fighting each other, but…it only manages to be a B- flick at best. So, feel free to kick back and watch the CGI action, you’ll enjoy most of it - just don’t spend too much time looking for plot or characters that you care about.
And…unfortunately…it’s making me care less and less about future sequels - or the future of the Kong/Godzilla Universe.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
