Search
Search results
David McK (3194 KP) rated Blood's Game in Books
Jan 30, 2019
Like, I'm sure, many others, my first exposure to the writings of [a:Angus Donald|584064|Angus Donald|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] was when I picked up [b:Outlaw|6624899|Outlaw (The Outlaw Chronicles, #1)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347668868s/6624899.jpg|6819139] on sale: a novel which reimagined the familiar character of Robin Hood, and which I thoroughly enjoyed: so much so that I made it a point to pick up all the novels in that series ([b:Outlaw|6624899|Outlaw (The Outlaw Chronicles, #1)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347668868s/6624899.jpg|6819139], [b:Holy Warrior|7710240|Holy Warrior (The Outlaw Chronicles, #2)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1327539941s/7710240.jpg|10428506], [b:King's Man|11351795|King's Man (The Outlaw Chronicles, #3)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328436464s/11351795.jpg|16281574], [b:Warlord|13077584|Warlord (The Outlaw Chronicles, #4)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1342984405s/13077584.jpg|18244685], [b:Grail Knight|20613734|Grail Knight (The Outlaw Chronicles #5)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1410172817s/20613734.jpg|21976159], [b:The Iron Castle|19857964|The Iron Castle (Outlaw Chronicles, #6)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1402550564s/19857964.jpg|27860558] and (finally) [b:The Death of Robin Hood|29348050|The Death of Robin Hood (The Outlaw Chronicles, #8)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1467543641s/29348050.jpg|49585935]).
This, however, would be the first time I had read one of Donald's novels that concerned a different central character, and that had a different setting: would it, I wondered, be more of the same, or would it have it's own 'feel'?
The answer, I can now say, is the latter.
Replacing Alan-a-Dale with Holcroft Blood, and told in the more traditional her-and-know third-person narrative (instead of the conceit of an elderly Alan recalling his youthful adventures with Robin Hood), this particular novel deals with the (attempted) theft of the Crown Jewels from the Tower of England during the reign of King Charles II, not long after the restoration.
While that (attempted) theft is carried out by Thomas Blood - who was caught red-handed but later, incredibly, was granted a pardon by Charles II - this novel does not have Thomas as the central character: rather, instead, we follow the fortunes of his youngest son Holcroft: a son who, throughout the course of this novel, becomes friends with Sir John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough (and Winston Churchill's direct descendant).
Whether true or not, young Holcroft is portrayed in this as suffering from a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome, able to easily code and decode correspondence sent to his master The Duke of Buckingham from his various spies and informants: a skill that comes in handy in this tale! I have to say, too, that the court of King Charles II comes across as incredibly decadent, full of scheming and back-stabbing rivals out wholly for themselves ...
I'd be interested in seeing where this series goes, especially as the next entry ([b:Blood's Revolution|36146468|Blood's Revolution|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1504033386s/36146468.jpg|57749834]) concerns itself - at least, according to the blurb at the back of this - with what is (in this country - Northern Ireland - at least) a very divisive and pivotal moment in English history.
This, however, would be the first time I had read one of Donald's novels that concerned a different central character, and that had a different setting: would it, I wondered, be more of the same, or would it have it's own 'feel'?
The answer, I can now say, is the latter.
Replacing Alan-a-Dale with Holcroft Blood, and told in the more traditional her-and-know third-person narrative (instead of the conceit of an elderly Alan recalling his youthful adventures with Robin Hood), this particular novel deals with the (attempted) theft of the Crown Jewels from the Tower of England during the reign of King Charles II, not long after the restoration.
While that (attempted) theft is carried out by Thomas Blood - who was caught red-handed but later, incredibly, was granted a pardon by Charles II - this novel does not have Thomas as the central character: rather, instead, we follow the fortunes of his youngest son Holcroft: a son who, throughout the course of this novel, becomes friends with Sir John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough (and Winston Churchill's direct descendant).
Whether true or not, young Holcroft is portrayed in this as suffering from a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome, able to easily code and decode correspondence sent to his master The Duke of Buckingham from his various spies and informants: a skill that comes in handy in this tale! I have to say, too, that the court of King Charles II comes across as incredibly decadent, full of scheming and back-stabbing rivals out wholly for themselves ...
I'd be interested in seeing where this series goes, especially as the next entry ([b:Blood's Revolution|36146468|Blood's Revolution|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1504033386s/36146468.jpg|57749834]) concerns itself - at least, according to the blurb at the back of this - with what is (in this country - Northern Ireland - at least) a very divisive and pivotal moment in English history.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mister Roberts (1955) in Movies
Apr 10, 2020
Well Acted
A staple of Old Hollywood under the Studio System was to adapt to the film Broadway shows that were a big hit. One such hit was the 1948 WWII play MISTER ROBERTS starring Henry Fonda (who would win a Tony Award for his performance).
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
JT (287 KP) rated Easy A (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Flat, dull and lacking in any laughs. Harsh this verdict might be, but I’m afraid it is about the long and the short of it. As Indie films go this does little to highlight those credentials bestowed on other greats such as Clueless or Sixteen Candles. The lovely Emma Stone whose turn in Superbad put her on the road to stardom is short of her best, and at times is cringe worthily bad.
Olive (Stone) is a well liked pupil at high school, but when a little white lie about losing her virginity gets the rumour mill going she is singled out as, well, quite simply a slut.
Drawing on comparisons to The Scarlet Letter, which happens to be one of the books she is studying she takes it upon herself to brandish her attire with the letter A, for adulterer, as well as using her new found status to milk a little money from desperate males keen to move a level or two up the social ladder.
As Indie films go this does little to highlight those credentials bestowed on other greats such as Clueless or Sixteen Candles
Some have compared this to the best teen comedy since Clueless, well forget it, Director Will Gluck does little to inject this film with any laughs whatsoever, and any dramatic interludes seem bland. If anything the characters are somewhat annoying, ranging from Amanda Bynes’s devout Christian who is not really a good advert for all things religious to Olive’s best bud Rhiannon (Aly Michalka) by far and away one of the worst acting performances I have seen for some time.
Even the inclusion of Friends star (yes she’ll always have that tag) Lisa Kudrow as the school councillor or Thomas Haden Church as her teacher husband do little to offer the overall outcome of the plot. Perhaps one of the few shinning lights are Olive’s parents Dill and Rosemary (aptly named), Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson respectively, whose care free guide to parenting should be noted for today’s modern age.
If Gluck thinks he can walk in the same footsteps of a John Hughes master class he is going to have to come up with something better than this. Hughes himself was the Godfather of the teenage comedy for the likes of The Breakfast Club and not forgetting for a second Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.
Easy A tries to hard to follow in the footsteps of the above and even Olive herself references them during the film, with an ending that hardly screams of originality, unless they are paying homage to 80s teen comedies.
Openly, its not good, confused and lost for long periods Stone does her utmost to pull anything back but it ain’t working for her or Gluck here.
Olive (Stone) is a well liked pupil at high school, but when a little white lie about losing her virginity gets the rumour mill going she is singled out as, well, quite simply a slut.
Drawing on comparisons to The Scarlet Letter, which happens to be one of the books she is studying she takes it upon herself to brandish her attire with the letter A, for adulterer, as well as using her new found status to milk a little money from desperate males keen to move a level or two up the social ladder.
As Indie films go this does little to highlight those credentials bestowed on other greats such as Clueless or Sixteen Candles
Some have compared this to the best teen comedy since Clueless, well forget it, Director Will Gluck does little to inject this film with any laughs whatsoever, and any dramatic interludes seem bland. If anything the characters are somewhat annoying, ranging from Amanda Bynes’s devout Christian who is not really a good advert for all things religious to Olive’s best bud Rhiannon (Aly Michalka) by far and away one of the worst acting performances I have seen for some time.
Even the inclusion of Friends star (yes she’ll always have that tag) Lisa Kudrow as the school councillor or Thomas Haden Church as her teacher husband do little to offer the overall outcome of the plot. Perhaps one of the few shinning lights are Olive’s parents Dill and Rosemary (aptly named), Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson respectively, whose care free guide to parenting should be noted for today’s modern age.
If Gluck thinks he can walk in the same footsteps of a John Hughes master class he is going to have to come up with something better than this. Hughes himself was the Godfather of the teenage comedy for the likes of The Breakfast Club and not forgetting for a second Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.
Easy A tries to hard to follow in the footsteps of the above and even Olive herself references them during the film, with an ending that hardly screams of originality, unless they are paying homage to 80s teen comedies.
Openly, its not good, confused and lost for long periods Stone does her utmost to pull anything back but it ain’t working for her or Gluck here.
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Live Free or Die Hard (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Computers have become such a mainstay of modern life that few of us even stop to imagine just how much of our lives are affected by them. In the course of a standard day, everything from the lights at the corner, offices, banks, and even the cars we drive are all governed in some ways by computers.
In the latest chapter in the Die Hard series, “Live Free or Die Hard”, audiences are given a glimpse of what could happen should a massive attack on our nation’s computer network occur, and shown how life as we know it could be severely altered without our digital creations monitoring the numerous tasks to which they have been assigned.
For Detective John McClane, (Bruce Willis), being in the wrong place at the right time has become par for the course, when his routine transportation of a suspected hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long), soon has him in a heated shootout, he realizes this is not going to be just another day at the office.
The nations computer network has come under attack by a cyber terrorist named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and in short order everything has shut down, and the cities of the country are in total chaos.
Since the bad guys have been so intent on silencing Matt, John becomes his guardian as the two try to unravel the master plan behind the attacks, and stay one step ahead of the legion of hired goons.
This is no easy task as seemingly every step of the way the duo are under attack from all fronts from an unseen enemy that can strike anywhere, and often without warning which results in some truly inspired and impressive action sequences.
In a race against time, old school cop McClane must rely on the tech fluent Matt as he once again finds himself the only man who can save the day before the world as we know it is lost.
This “Die Hard” is a real treat as it is the rare summer offering that not only lives up to the hype and promise, but surpasses it. Willis reportedly waited to find the write script and director (Len Wiseman of the “Underworld” films); to bring the next chapter to the series and it is a dynamic and effective pairing.
Wiseman is a fan of the series and as a teen was influenced by the earlier films in the series. His love and understanding of the characters and subject matter is clear as he stages very clever and entertaining action sequences that while thrilling, never take the place of the human elements of the film.
The film is clearly about McClane and his reluctant heroics as he laments that being a hero is not all that it is cracked up to be, and the aftermath of such actions often make for a life filled with baggage.
Willis is in top form, as he comfortably steps back into the familiar role and throws himself physically into a very demanding role, where he insisted upon doing the majority of his stunt work. His gritty approach to the character pays off, as McClane is not some super-powered character; he is a normal man, with faults who is driven to do his part when needed.
The film does take a brief pause about 80 minutes into the nearly two hour run time to expand on some of the characters and the plot, but ramps up for an amazing finale that has some of the best action and stunt work in recent memory.
It was reported that Wiseman kept CGI effects to a minimum for many sequences in order to give them a more realistic look, and in doing so, has crafted a true gem.
Some people have complained about the film being “toned down” to PG-13 but I can tell you that there is just as much action, violence, and body count as any film in the series; they were just not overly gratuitous with the use of blood. That being said, at no point did I get the impression I was watching a sanitized film, I was too busy enjoying a solid action film that takes the audience on one hell of a thrilling ride.
In the latest chapter in the Die Hard series, “Live Free or Die Hard”, audiences are given a glimpse of what could happen should a massive attack on our nation’s computer network occur, and shown how life as we know it could be severely altered without our digital creations monitoring the numerous tasks to which they have been assigned.
For Detective John McClane, (Bruce Willis), being in the wrong place at the right time has become par for the course, when his routine transportation of a suspected hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long), soon has him in a heated shootout, he realizes this is not going to be just another day at the office.
The nations computer network has come under attack by a cyber terrorist named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and in short order everything has shut down, and the cities of the country are in total chaos.
Since the bad guys have been so intent on silencing Matt, John becomes his guardian as the two try to unravel the master plan behind the attacks, and stay one step ahead of the legion of hired goons.
This is no easy task as seemingly every step of the way the duo are under attack from all fronts from an unseen enemy that can strike anywhere, and often without warning which results in some truly inspired and impressive action sequences.
In a race against time, old school cop McClane must rely on the tech fluent Matt as he once again finds himself the only man who can save the day before the world as we know it is lost.
This “Die Hard” is a real treat as it is the rare summer offering that not only lives up to the hype and promise, but surpasses it. Willis reportedly waited to find the write script and director (Len Wiseman of the “Underworld” films); to bring the next chapter to the series and it is a dynamic and effective pairing.
Wiseman is a fan of the series and as a teen was influenced by the earlier films in the series. His love and understanding of the characters and subject matter is clear as he stages very clever and entertaining action sequences that while thrilling, never take the place of the human elements of the film.
The film is clearly about McClane and his reluctant heroics as he laments that being a hero is not all that it is cracked up to be, and the aftermath of such actions often make for a life filled with baggage.
Willis is in top form, as he comfortably steps back into the familiar role and throws himself physically into a very demanding role, where he insisted upon doing the majority of his stunt work. His gritty approach to the character pays off, as McClane is not some super-powered character; he is a normal man, with faults who is driven to do his part when needed.
The film does take a brief pause about 80 minutes into the nearly two hour run time to expand on some of the characters and the plot, but ramps up for an amazing finale that has some of the best action and stunt work in recent memory.
It was reported that Wiseman kept CGI effects to a minimum for many sequences in order to give them a more realistic look, and in doing so, has crafted a true gem.
Some people have complained about the film being “toned down” to PG-13 but I can tell you that there is just as much action, violence, and body count as any film in the series; they were just not overly gratuitous with the use of blood. That being said, at no point did I get the impression I was watching a sanitized film, I was too busy enjoying a solid action film that takes the audience on one hell of a thrilling ride.
Kyera (8 KP) rated Stalking Jack the Ripper in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Stalking Jack the Ripper is a fascinating, fictional take on the reign of terror that gripped London in the late 1800's. The story is told through the eyes of a teen girl, Audrey Rose, who is doing her best to study under her uncle's tutelage - as a forensic scientist. She is drawn into the murders, even though her family and society does not agree with her inclusion in the affair as it is not right for ladies to be interested in such things.
The author did a brilliant job weaving what facts we know historically about Jack the Ripper into her carefully crafted narrative. The dialogue is a bit clunky at times and the pacing could have been better, but overall I enjoyed this book. Some people felt that the perpetrator was obvious from the first moment they stepped on the scene, but I didn't feel that way. It seemed like the suspense and horror built over the course of the book until you finally realize who the killer is in the final moments before its reveal.
The characters were both a high and low point in the book. I enjoyed the fact that the main character was meant to be a more progressive person than women in her time generally, but sometimes her inner dialogues were strange moments of her thinking utterly ridiculous thoughts and then immediately dismissing them like oh no that cannot be. She desires to be both pretty and fierce and does not understand why society feels that she cannot be both. Audrey Rose also has a propensity for charging into dangerous situations with no planning, when a murderer is stalking the streets looking for women to cut apart. It's difficult to explain how all of those things combined to affect her portrayal, but overall it made her seem less strong, much more insecure, and significantly less grounded than I feel the author was hoping to portray her.
Thomas Cresswell, on the other hand, is the witty British boy that you can help but love when he enters a scene. He made brilliant deductions and didn't miss a moment attempting to seduce Miss Audrey Rose. The two of them together were such a fun team, even if Audrey Rose's inner dialogue was frustratingly superficial. Oh, I hate this boy, oh, I can't help but want to kiss him, he's terrible, he's wonderful. Please, Audrey Rose, control your emotions and be the strong heroine we deserve in this book. Together, they were very reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.
The author creates a vivid landscape upon which this gruesome tableau takes place. That being said, I would definitely caution some readers from this book as the violence is quite explicitly described. It can definitely be too much for some younger readers or people who are squeamish. If you feel like you're okay with the gory details and enjoy forensic science, I believe you will enjoy this book.
The author did a brilliant job weaving what facts we know historically about Jack the Ripper into her carefully crafted narrative. The dialogue is a bit clunky at times and the pacing could have been better, but overall I enjoyed this book. Some people felt that the perpetrator was obvious from the first moment they stepped on the scene, but I didn't feel that way. It seemed like the suspense and horror built over the course of the book until you finally realize who the killer is in the final moments before its reveal.
The characters were both a high and low point in the book. I enjoyed the fact that the main character was meant to be a more progressive person than women in her time generally, but sometimes her inner dialogues were strange moments of her thinking utterly ridiculous thoughts and then immediately dismissing them like oh no that cannot be. She desires to be both pretty and fierce and does not understand why society feels that she cannot be both. Audrey Rose also has a propensity for charging into dangerous situations with no planning, when a murderer is stalking the streets looking for women to cut apart. It's difficult to explain how all of those things combined to affect her portrayal, but overall it made her seem less strong, much more insecure, and significantly less grounded than I feel the author was hoping to portray her.
Thomas Cresswell, on the other hand, is the witty British boy that you can help but love when he enters a scene. He made brilliant deductions and didn't miss a moment attempting to seduce Miss Audrey Rose. The two of them together were such a fun team, even if Audrey Rose's inner dialogue was frustratingly superficial. Oh, I hate this boy, oh, I can't help but want to kiss him, he's terrible, he's wonderful. Please, Audrey Rose, control your emotions and be the strong heroine we deserve in this book. Together, they were very reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.
The author creates a vivid landscape upon which this gruesome tableau takes place. That being said, I would definitely caution some readers from this book as the violence is quite explicitly described. It can definitely be too much for some younger readers or people who are squeamish. If you feel like you're okay with the gory details and enjoy forensic science, I believe you will enjoy this book.
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: The hijinks of this duo is always hilarious and this time is no different, getting themselves in all sorts of trouble as well as finding funny ways to get out of them. They always find colourful characters some seen before some new ones. It is all fun but not too serious and the story offers not too much more original than the first two. (7/10)
Actor Review: Kal Penn – The stoner friend who needs to learn to grow up and throughout the film he finally learns to. Continues to do a good job in the role showing he has some very good comic timing. (8/10)
kumar
Actor Review: John Cho – Has always been the more serious of the pairing and now has taken that too the next level. Just like Kal he is good again working to be more serious to his more laid back what will be role. Lesley’s Stud Muffin Award (8/10)
harold
Actor Review: Neil Patrick Harris – Always turns up as himself in these films and always steals the scene. This is no different making his character even funnier. Scene Stealer Award (9/10)
HPH
Actor Review: Danny Trejo – The disapproving father of Harold who starts out being very against Harold, but letting Harold prove he has what it takes to look after his daughter. Very much written for Trejo letting him poke fun at the characters he has created through the years. (8/10)
Actor Review: Amir Blumenfeld – Kumar’s friend who ends up taking everyone to a party helping leading to the mess the guys end up in. Good addition to the cast has some of the funnier scenes. (8/10)
Actor Review: Thomas Lennon – Has to look after his baby daughter and ends up in situations where the baby gets stoned by accident. They panic stricken character adds some many funny moments in this film. They Have the Laughs Award, Funniest Character Award (9/10)
Todd & Adrian with the stoned baby
Todd & Adrian with the stoned baby
Director Review: Todd Strauss-Schulson – This small time director steps up to create a good comedy. (8/10)
Comedy: Good comedy, very funny scenarios created. (8/10)
Special Effects: Pokes fun at the 3D era in the cinema with some funny special effects. (9/10)
Chemistry: Harold & Kumar have great chemistry throughout the film. (9/10)
Believability: I am sure some stoner have had some wild adventures not as wild as these guys but still similar. (6/10)
Chances of Tears: None (0/10)
Oscar Chances: NONE
Chances of Sequel: I am sure they have enough to make a sequel.
Suggestion: A comedy that should be enjoyed by all fans of the mature audience. If you like the first two you will like this one. If you want serious you are looking in the wrong place. (Enjoy The Trip)
Best Part: Clay doe scene.
clay
Kill Of The Film: By the waffle machine.
Funniest Scene: The stoned baby
Similar Too: Harold & Kumar’s previous adventures.
Overall: Outrageous comedy with plenty of laughs
Lesley’s Rating 60%
https://moviesreview101.com/2013/12/21/a-very-harold-kumar-3d-christmas-2011/
Actor Review: Kal Penn – The stoner friend who needs to learn to grow up and throughout the film he finally learns to. Continues to do a good job in the role showing he has some very good comic timing. (8/10)
kumar
Actor Review: John Cho – Has always been the more serious of the pairing and now has taken that too the next level. Just like Kal he is good again working to be more serious to his more laid back what will be role. Lesley’s Stud Muffin Award (8/10)
harold
Actor Review: Neil Patrick Harris – Always turns up as himself in these films and always steals the scene. This is no different making his character even funnier. Scene Stealer Award (9/10)
HPH
Actor Review: Danny Trejo – The disapproving father of Harold who starts out being very against Harold, but letting Harold prove he has what it takes to look after his daughter. Very much written for Trejo letting him poke fun at the characters he has created through the years. (8/10)
Actor Review: Amir Blumenfeld – Kumar’s friend who ends up taking everyone to a party helping leading to the mess the guys end up in. Good addition to the cast has some of the funnier scenes. (8/10)
Actor Review: Thomas Lennon – Has to look after his baby daughter and ends up in situations where the baby gets stoned by accident. They panic stricken character adds some many funny moments in this film. They Have the Laughs Award, Funniest Character Award (9/10)
Todd & Adrian with the stoned baby
Todd & Adrian with the stoned baby
Director Review: Todd Strauss-Schulson – This small time director steps up to create a good comedy. (8/10)
Comedy: Good comedy, very funny scenarios created. (8/10)
Special Effects: Pokes fun at the 3D era in the cinema with some funny special effects. (9/10)
Chemistry: Harold & Kumar have great chemistry throughout the film. (9/10)
Believability: I am sure some stoner have had some wild adventures not as wild as these guys but still similar. (6/10)
Chances of Tears: None (0/10)
Oscar Chances: NONE
Chances of Sequel: I am sure they have enough to make a sequel.
Suggestion: A comedy that should be enjoyed by all fans of the mature audience. If you like the first two you will like this one. If you want serious you are looking in the wrong place. (Enjoy The Trip)
Best Part: Clay doe scene.
clay
Kill Of The Film: By the waffle machine.
Funniest Scene: The stoned baby
Similar Too: Harold & Kumar’s previous adventures.
Overall: Outrageous comedy with plenty of laughs
Lesley’s Rating 60%
https://moviesreview101.com/2013/12/21/a-very-harold-kumar-3d-christmas-2011/
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Seventh Son (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
After a two-year delay, Seventh Son has finally reached the big screen, and it will leave you conflicted.
Seventh Son is brought to us by director Sergey Bodrov. Originally set for a February 2013 release, the film had complicated distribution arrangements between Legendary and Warner Brothers, which kept causing delays.
Jeff Bridges plays one of the title characters: Master John Gregory. He is the last of an order of peacekeeper knights, which once used to be a thousand strong. All of these knights are seventh sons of seventh sons, and are self-tasked with keeping the evil creatures of the world at bay.
The movie starts off with a young Gregory completing a prison cell for an unknown woman. Years later, the prisoner, a draconic beast, breaks out and attacks a nearby town, specifically targeting the aged Knight and his apprentice (Kit Harington — Jon Snow from Game of Thrones). This recently released evil is Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore), the queen of witches.
During the battle, Harington’s brief existence in this film is brought to an end, causing Gregory to seek out another apprentice. This search leads him to young Thomas Ward (Ben Barnes). After Ward goes through some sad goodbyes with his family, he and Gregory set out to take down the Witch Queen before the blood moon sets.
His training would normally take 10 years, but they only have a week.
Put simply, this movie was very fragmented. It isn’t a good movie, but it isn’t a bad one either. It has reasonable special effects and decent fight scenes.
There is plenty of star power: Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, Kit Harington, Djimon Hounsou (one of my favorites), and Jason Scott Lee.
Jeff Bridges missed the mark on his character. It’s one thing to be disgruntled and war-torn with a curious sense of humor, but it’s something quite different to be outright silly.
There were no explanations. How did the order come about? Why seventh sons of seventh sons? How did Gregory KNOW there was a seventh son at that house? How did the war start? Why is Gregory the last? Why wasn’t there more about Gregory’s relationship with Malkin? Why did the skeleton in the armor attack Tom? Why do the swords hum? Where did the stone come from? Why was it powerful? Why anything, really? The story has no depth, failing to explain the “why” of any of its lore. There were only statements of fact, which confuses viewers and prevents them from becoming emotionally anchored to the story.
I simply didn’t care about the characters. The film was disorganized and rushed. Perhaps it would have been better served as two films, or a longer film, or even a mini series.
Seventh Son had the potential to be so much more. A combination of poor writing and bad direction made the movie lackluster to me and all three of my companions.
The actors delivered many campy one-liners, and the chuckles they drew from the crowd were quite unintentional.
If you are a fan of high fantasy, it’s probably worth seeing, but wait for it to arrive on Netflix and use it as background entertainment
Seventh Son is brought to us by director Sergey Bodrov. Originally set for a February 2013 release, the film had complicated distribution arrangements between Legendary and Warner Brothers, which kept causing delays.
Jeff Bridges plays one of the title characters: Master John Gregory. He is the last of an order of peacekeeper knights, which once used to be a thousand strong. All of these knights are seventh sons of seventh sons, and are self-tasked with keeping the evil creatures of the world at bay.
The movie starts off with a young Gregory completing a prison cell for an unknown woman. Years later, the prisoner, a draconic beast, breaks out and attacks a nearby town, specifically targeting the aged Knight and his apprentice (Kit Harington — Jon Snow from Game of Thrones). This recently released evil is Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore), the queen of witches.
During the battle, Harington’s brief existence in this film is brought to an end, causing Gregory to seek out another apprentice. This search leads him to young Thomas Ward (Ben Barnes). After Ward goes through some sad goodbyes with his family, he and Gregory set out to take down the Witch Queen before the blood moon sets.
His training would normally take 10 years, but they only have a week.
Put simply, this movie was very fragmented. It isn’t a good movie, but it isn’t a bad one either. It has reasonable special effects and decent fight scenes.
There is plenty of star power: Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, Kit Harington, Djimon Hounsou (one of my favorites), and Jason Scott Lee.
Jeff Bridges missed the mark on his character. It’s one thing to be disgruntled and war-torn with a curious sense of humor, but it’s something quite different to be outright silly.
There were no explanations. How did the order come about? Why seventh sons of seventh sons? How did Gregory KNOW there was a seventh son at that house? How did the war start? Why is Gregory the last? Why wasn’t there more about Gregory’s relationship with Malkin? Why did the skeleton in the armor attack Tom? Why do the swords hum? Where did the stone come from? Why was it powerful? Why anything, really? The story has no depth, failing to explain the “why” of any of its lore. There were only statements of fact, which confuses viewers and prevents them from becoming emotionally anchored to the story.
I simply didn’t care about the characters. The film was disorganized and rushed. Perhaps it would have been better served as two films, or a longer film, or even a mini series.
Seventh Son had the potential to be so much more. A combination of poor writing and bad direction made the movie lackluster to me and all three of my companions.
The actors delivered many campy one-liners, and the chuckles they drew from the crowd were quite unintentional.
If you are a fan of high fantasy, it’s probably worth seeing, but wait for it to arrive on Netflix and use it as background entertainment
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Avengers West Coast: Darker than Scarlet in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I took advantage of some great Marvel sales on Comixology the end of last month. It was a great opportunity to revisit HOUSE OF M (which I had own the TPB of it when still owned the physical copies, instead of the digital ones I now favor). I bought that one, WCA: DARKER THAN SCARLET, X-MEN: DECIMATION - SON OF M, DECIMATION: HOUSE OF M - THE DAY AFTER, and AVENGERS: THE CHILDREN'S CRUSADE. I started WCA: DTS the end of last week, finishing it up today.
First, I just want to open with what a refreshing breath it was to return to late 1989 for this read. It was a simpler time, in which you could tell the villains from the heroes, where heroes actually did <b>good things</b> on account of, you know, them being heroes and all, and where villains committed actual <i>dirty deeds</i>! And it was also a time when Marvel still understood that publishing good comic books didn't mean dovetailing each and every event into another event six months later, followed by *another* event six months <after> the first two!
One of the big draws for this trade was getting to see John Byrne back when he was totally on his game (not that he has ever been off his game). Seriously, it was worth it just to see him draw the 'M' fam again: Magneto, Scarlet With and Quicksilver! So, so good! And best of all? The art was actually drawn on paper, with inks, no computer aiding at that point in comic publishing!
And while his style was somewhat different that Byrne's, Paul Ryan did an equally great job as the penciller for the remainder of the story's last three issues. I had forgotten how I much I had liked his art back in the day, stirring up fond memories of his run as penciller on IRON MAN, also in the late 80s. #goodtimes
In addition to handling the art chores, Byrne also provided the writing. Equally admirable is the way Roy Thomas, and his wife Dann, took over the writing beginning with Issue #60, providing a seamless transition from Byrne. Both writers provided a fun sense, even when the danger was mounting against them, of the Avengers.
So, as much as I loved this trade, I also feel the need to let you all know the dialogue at points felt a little clunky, maybe a little dated. However, it was nothing that took away from my overall enjoyment of this volume. At points where the dialogue didn't feel all that good, I just went and re-read it with names, or words, that fit better. Again, nothing that should diminish the fun factor here, unless you are one of <i>those kind</i> of comic readers!
In concluding, I just want to say this was a good read. It is especially important, perhaps even so far as dubbing it "required reading", before starting HOUSE OF M. In an age where the fun has diminished greatly in the superhero comics, it is good to have something like this to read, which helps us escape the "doom 'n goom" of this so un-fun era!
First, I just want to open with what a refreshing breath it was to return to late 1989 for this read. It was a simpler time, in which you could tell the villains from the heroes, where heroes actually did <b>good things</b> on account of, you know, them being heroes and all, and where villains committed actual <i>dirty deeds</i>! And it was also a time when Marvel still understood that publishing good comic books didn't mean dovetailing each and every event into another event six months later, followed by *another* event six months <after> the first two!
One of the big draws for this trade was getting to see John Byrne back when he was totally on his game (not that he has ever been off his game). Seriously, it was worth it just to see him draw the 'M' fam again: Magneto, Scarlet With and Quicksilver! So, so good! And best of all? The art was actually drawn on paper, with inks, no computer aiding at that point in comic publishing!
And while his style was somewhat different that Byrne's, Paul Ryan did an equally great job as the penciller for the remainder of the story's last three issues. I had forgotten how I much I had liked his art back in the day, stirring up fond memories of his run as penciller on IRON MAN, also in the late 80s. #goodtimes
In addition to handling the art chores, Byrne also provided the writing. Equally admirable is the way Roy Thomas, and his wife Dann, took over the writing beginning with Issue #60, providing a seamless transition from Byrne. Both writers provided a fun sense, even when the danger was mounting against them, of the Avengers.
So, as much as I loved this trade, I also feel the need to let you all know the dialogue at points felt a little clunky, maybe a little dated. However, it was nothing that took away from my overall enjoyment of this volume. At points where the dialogue didn't feel all that good, I just went and re-read it with names, or words, that fit better. Again, nothing that should diminish the fun factor here, unless you are one of <i>those kind</i> of comic readers!
In concluding, I just want to say this was a good read. It is especially important, perhaps even so far as dubbing it "required reading", before starting HOUSE OF M. In an age where the fun has diminished greatly in the superhero comics, it is good to have something like this to read, which helps us escape the "doom 'n goom" of this so un-fun era!
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Ridge in Books
Mar 15, 2018
When I saw John Rector had another novel coming out I was really excited. I read a previous book of his, <i>Ruthless</i>, which I really enjoyed, so I was sure I was going to like this one, but it didn't live up to my expectations.
This book sounds like it's going to be about a creepy neighbourhood, and while it is, it also isn't. Sure, our characters live in a Stepford Wives feeling place, but we actually only meet 2 or 3 extra characters who live in the neighbourhood, so when the synopsis says something about "exposing the community's pretty lies", there didn't feel like there was much of that. It was far more about a woman digging up secrets on an institute that happens to have all its employees living in one area. This isn't particularly a bad thing, it's just something to note. It's not quite as Stepford Wives as you might think!
This book is 90% conversation and 10% description, so if you're the kind of person who likes descriptive, poetic reads, this certainly won't be for you, but for me, all the speech wasn't an issue, it was sometimes what was being said that I had an issue with. Lots of the time I felt conversation was a little bland, stiff and unrealistic. In terms of descriptive writing, about the neighbourhood or a person, there was nothing special to note. There was also a rehashing of several particular phrases that began to grate on me quite soon into the book.
To begin with, I did really like this novel, I found myself rushing through it, intrigued to know what was going on. It was subtle but it was creepy. Towards the middle, my interest began to dip a bit. I had started to guess what was happening, as well as there being a not-so-exciting reveal. Some parts of the story also started to feel amiss, such as the roses bushes outside of Rachel's being described as "in full bloom" after the scene of her hacking away at them... continuity was sometimes a little shady.
What really let this novel down for me was the characters and the immaturity of them all. None of them felt real, so it was difficult picturing them in situations. Particularly our MC, Megan, who was really juvenile and melodramatic. And naive. Oh so very, stupidly, unrealistically naive. It was so easy to become annoyed by her rash decision making and all the different ways she handled situations. What really got me, was her revealing conversation with Mercer about midway through the book. I couldn't wrap my head around how she could turn around and call him "crazy" after everything she had been through. It felt totally off kilter!
I liked and I didn't like this book. I think it could have been so much creepier and mysterious than it was. I felt there was too much time being spent on Megan's thoughts of Chicago and her marriage to fully appreciate the weirdness of the community she lived in. Ultimately, this book was too simple. It all worked out too well and everything slot perfectly into place, which totally isn't my kind of thriller story.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Thomas & Mercer for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
This book sounds like it's going to be about a creepy neighbourhood, and while it is, it also isn't. Sure, our characters live in a Stepford Wives feeling place, but we actually only meet 2 or 3 extra characters who live in the neighbourhood, so when the synopsis says something about "exposing the community's pretty lies", there didn't feel like there was much of that. It was far more about a woman digging up secrets on an institute that happens to have all its employees living in one area. This isn't particularly a bad thing, it's just something to note. It's not quite as Stepford Wives as you might think!
This book is 90% conversation and 10% description, so if you're the kind of person who likes descriptive, poetic reads, this certainly won't be for you, but for me, all the speech wasn't an issue, it was sometimes what was being said that I had an issue with. Lots of the time I felt conversation was a little bland, stiff and unrealistic. In terms of descriptive writing, about the neighbourhood or a person, there was nothing special to note. There was also a rehashing of several particular phrases that began to grate on me quite soon into the book.
To begin with, I did really like this novel, I found myself rushing through it, intrigued to know what was going on. It was subtle but it was creepy. Towards the middle, my interest began to dip a bit. I had started to guess what was happening, as well as there being a not-so-exciting reveal. Some parts of the story also started to feel amiss, such as the roses bushes outside of Rachel's being described as "in full bloom" after the scene of her hacking away at them... continuity was sometimes a little shady.
What really let this novel down for me was the characters and the immaturity of them all. None of them felt real, so it was difficult picturing them in situations. Particularly our MC, Megan, who was really juvenile and melodramatic. And naive. Oh so very, stupidly, unrealistically naive. It was so easy to become annoyed by her rash decision making and all the different ways she handled situations. What really got me, was her revealing conversation with Mercer about midway through the book. I couldn't wrap my head around how she could turn around and call him "crazy" after everything she had been through. It felt totally off kilter!
I liked and I didn't like this book. I think it could have been so much creepier and mysterious than it was. I felt there was too much time being spent on Megan's thoughts of Chicago and her marriage to fully appreciate the weirdness of the community she lived in. Ultimately, this book was too simple. It all worked out too well and everything slot perfectly into place, which totally isn't my kind of thriller story.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Thomas & Mercer for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>