Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Body Snatcher (1945) in Movies
Oct 17, 2020
Boris Karloff (1 more)
Bela Lugosi
Invasion
The Body Snatcher- is not related to "The Body Snatchers". Yes it is confused. Cause i thought this was the oringal version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", just called "The Body Snatcher". Nope it turns out its two different things. Both based off of books. This film is based off of "The Body Snatcher" by Robert Louis Stevenson. While "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is based off of Jack Finney's 1954 science fiction novel "The Body Snatchers". So yea not confusing at all.
The plot: Dr. Toddy MacFarlane (Henry Daniell) needs cadavers for his medical experiments, ultimately intended to treat a young disabled girl. However, they are not easy to come by, so he enlists the help of taxi driver John Gray (Boris Karloff) and his assistant, Joseph (Bela Lugosi), to unearth bodies from the cemetery. When Donald (Russell Wade), Dr. MacFarlane's assistant, recognizes one of the corpses Gray delivers, the true source of the bodies is called into question.
It is based on the short story "The Body Snatcher" by Robert Louis Stevenson. The film's producer Val Lewton helped adapt the story for the screen, writing under the pen name of "Carlos Keith". The film was marketed with the tagline "The screen's last word in shock sensation!" The frequent mentions of Burke, Hare, and Dr. Knox, all refer to the West Port murders in 1828.
The Body Snatcher was one of three films that Boris Karloff did with RKO Radio Pictures from 1945 to 1946, which were produced by Val Lewton. The other two films were Isle of the Dead (1945) and Bedlam (1946).
Bela Lugosi, who became famous with another Universal classic, Dracula (1931), also signed a deal with RKO. Lewton and MacDonald eventually wrote a small role for him; it became the last film Lugosi and Karloff made together.
Robert Wise – later best-known for his work in The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), West Side Story (1961), The Sound of Music (1965), and The Sand Pebbles (1966) – was assigned to direct the film. Longtime film editor at RKO, he had replaced the original director on The Curse of the Cat People (1944) when it fell behind schedule and Lewton, who produced it, decided to promote him to his superiors.
Its a excellent film.
The plot: Dr. Toddy MacFarlane (Henry Daniell) needs cadavers for his medical experiments, ultimately intended to treat a young disabled girl. However, they are not easy to come by, so he enlists the help of taxi driver John Gray (Boris Karloff) and his assistant, Joseph (Bela Lugosi), to unearth bodies from the cemetery. When Donald (Russell Wade), Dr. MacFarlane's assistant, recognizes one of the corpses Gray delivers, the true source of the bodies is called into question.
It is based on the short story "The Body Snatcher" by Robert Louis Stevenson. The film's producer Val Lewton helped adapt the story for the screen, writing under the pen name of "Carlos Keith". The film was marketed with the tagline "The screen's last word in shock sensation!" The frequent mentions of Burke, Hare, and Dr. Knox, all refer to the West Port murders in 1828.
The Body Snatcher was one of three films that Boris Karloff did with RKO Radio Pictures from 1945 to 1946, which were produced by Val Lewton. The other two films were Isle of the Dead (1945) and Bedlam (1946).
Bela Lugosi, who became famous with another Universal classic, Dracula (1931), also signed a deal with RKO. Lewton and MacDonald eventually wrote a small role for him; it became the last film Lugosi and Karloff made together.
Robert Wise – later best-known for his work in The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), West Side Story (1961), The Sound of Music (1965), and The Sand Pebbles (1966) – was assigned to direct the film. Longtime film editor at RKO, he had replaced the original director on The Curse of the Cat People (1944) when it fell behind schedule and Lewton, who produced it, decided to promote him to his superiors.
Its a excellent film.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Frank Miller's Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
I think that I actually prefer A Dame to Kill For over the first Sin City...
Once again, it's a visual feast, and once again, has a damn fine cast.
Two of the stories here are (unless I'm mistaken) written for this film, rather than being adapted. One of them concentrates on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his incredible luck at gambling. This story serves as nothing more than to further highlight just how much of an asshole Senator Rourke (Powers Boothe) is, once again, acting as the films main big bad. It's effective enough and does what it sets out to do. The other story concentrates on Nancy (Jessica Alba) torn up and struggling with alcohol after what Rourke did to Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first movie, before enlisting the help of Marv (Mickey Rourke) to exact revenge. This one is a little more high stakes. By this point, you really want Rourke to face some really unfriendly justice, and it's fitting that Nancy be the one to dish it out.
However, the titular story is what holds everything together.
A Dame to Kill For, which is indeed adapted from the comics is fantastic. It takes up the majority of runtime, and follows pre Clive Owen looking Dwight (Josh Brolin) going toe to toe with the seductively powerful and dangerous Ava (Eva Green). Here is where we're in full blown prequel territory, learning how Dwight comes to look how he does in the original, his connections the the girls of Old Town, and how Manute (Dennis Haysbert) ends up with his fetching golden eyeball. The best character interactions happen here. Green and Brolin are both great, and easily steal the show. It also boasts some great action when Gail (Rosario Dawson) and Miho (Jamie Chung) return to fuck shit up, and is just an all round enjoyable segment that easily dwarfs the other two stories.
The cast also includes Ray Liota, Christopher Meloni, Jaime King, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Juno Temple, Julia Garner, and Lady Gaga, so yeah, pretty solid ensemble all in all!
Its a damn shame that ADTKF took as long as it did to materialise. The Sin City hype train had gone a bit quiet by the time it released, and it didn't get the credit it deserves, and is frequently discarded as an inferior film to it's predecessor when personally, I think there's a lot to love.
Once again, it's a visual feast, and once again, has a damn fine cast.
Two of the stories here are (unless I'm mistaken) written for this film, rather than being adapted. One of them concentrates on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his incredible luck at gambling. This story serves as nothing more than to further highlight just how much of an asshole Senator Rourke (Powers Boothe) is, once again, acting as the films main big bad. It's effective enough and does what it sets out to do. The other story concentrates on Nancy (Jessica Alba) torn up and struggling with alcohol after what Rourke did to Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first movie, before enlisting the help of Marv (Mickey Rourke) to exact revenge. This one is a little more high stakes. By this point, you really want Rourke to face some really unfriendly justice, and it's fitting that Nancy be the one to dish it out.
However, the titular story is what holds everything together.
A Dame to Kill For, which is indeed adapted from the comics is fantastic. It takes up the majority of runtime, and follows pre Clive Owen looking Dwight (Josh Brolin) going toe to toe with the seductively powerful and dangerous Ava (Eva Green). Here is where we're in full blown prequel territory, learning how Dwight comes to look how he does in the original, his connections the the girls of Old Town, and how Manute (Dennis Haysbert) ends up with his fetching golden eyeball. The best character interactions happen here. Green and Brolin are both great, and easily steal the show. It also boasts some great action when Gail (Rosario Dawson) and Miho (Jamie Chung) return to fuck shit up, and is just an all round enjoyable segment that easily dwarfs the other two stories.
The cast also includes Ray Liota, Christopher Meloni, Jaime King, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Juno Temple, Julia Garner, and Lady Gaga, so yeah, pretty solid ensemble all in all!
Its a damn shame that ADTKF took as long as it did to materialise. The Sin City hype train had gone a bit quiet by the time it released, and it didn't get the credit it deserves, and is frequently discarded as an inferior film to it's predecessor when personally, I think there's a lot to love.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated We Own the Night (2007) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Crime movie for crime movie fans
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a crime film for crime movie fans. It has it all, from sex, violence, wires and gritty hits. But at its heart is family, here driven by the two leads, Mark Wahlberg and Jequium Phoenix, reunited in yet another of James Grey's films. The tone is dark, with a realistic look as we are taken on trip back to 1988 and a fictional cop family, led by the Deputy Chief Of Police (NYPD) Robert Duvall, who is the father to Wahlberg's up and coming cop, with Phoenix's nightclub manager, who is not a criminal as such, but is a disappointment to his family.
As the trio become embroiled in an organised crime syndicate, they find themselves under a very personal attack and must take down the mob boss to save their lives. The problem with this film is that it plods its way through, lacking enough tension or high key performances to carry, what to me, should have been a taunt screenplay. Instead, it's a bit flat, with Phoenix's trademark sleepy performance. On the other hand, it's quite good, driven by real motivations and characters, is what saves this from 5/10 rating is a fantastically low-key car chase which looked and felt phenomenal, ending with tragedy which would drive the story in a more dubious direction.
Phoenix will end up being granted special dispensation to become a cop in order to track down the mobster, a plot point that I found to be a little far-fetched, though maybe this sort of thing has happened, I don't know but it just tipped the film over the edge of plausibility. I feel that We Own The Night, the motto of the now disbanded NYPD Street Crime Unit, which is headed up here by the fictional Captain Joseph Grusinsky (Wahlberg) thinks very highly of itself as a top quality crime drama, up there with the likes of The Godfather (1972) and Heat (1995), but it is not. It's good and better if you like the genre, but this is a film set in the late 80′s, made in the style of The Godfather light, which was a quintessential 1970′s movie. It needed to pack more of a punch or have some of the style which films such as those of Michael Mann or Martin Scorsese.
A decent story, good cinematography and noble effort but failed to blow me away.
As the trio become embroiled in an organised crime syndicate, they find themselves under a very personal attack and must take down the mob boss to save their lives. The problem with this film is that it plods its way through, lacking enough tension or high key performances to carry, what to me, should have been a taunt screenplay. Instead, it's a bit flat, with Phoenix's trademark sleepy performance. On the other hand, it's quite good, driven by real motivations and characters, is what saves this from 5/10 rating is a fantastically low-key car chase which looked and felt phenomenal, ending with tragedy which would drive the story in a more dubious direction.
Phoenix will end up being granted special dispensation to become a cop in order to track down the mobster, a plot point that I found to be a little far-fetched, though maybe this sort of thing has happened, I don't know but it just tipped the film over the edge of plausibility. I feel that We Own The Night, the motto of the now disbanded NYPD Street Crime Unit, which is headed up here by the fictional Captain Joseph Grusinsky (Wahlberg) thinks very highly of itself as a top quality crime drama, up there with the likes of The Godfather (1972) and Heat (1995), but it is not. It's good and better if you like the genre, but this is a film set in the late 80′s, made in the style of The Godfather light, which was a quintessential 1970′s movie. It needed to pack more of a punch or have some of the style which films such as those of Michael Mann or Martin Scorsese.
A decent story, good cinematography and noble effort but failed to blow me away.
ClareR (5603 KP) rated Beneath the Surface in Books
Jul 9, 2019
A family’s destructive secrets
All families have secrets, but it’s highly likely that not all families have secrets that are quite as huge as those that the Vermuydens are keeping from one another.
Grace had grown up in a very chaotic household and she doesn’t want that for her daughters. But when 17 year old Lilly collapses at school, it triggers a chain of events where the family members realise that there are consequences to keeping their secrets.
I actually liked the Vermuyden family. Grace is a mother trying her utmost to give her daughters all the things she never had. She can come across as a pushy ‘helicopter’ mother, but as the story progresses, we realise that there’s no wonder that she tries so hard. However, it can’t be easy for Lilly, who all of her efforts are directed at. She has a great responsibility: mainly to achieve all of the academic things that her mother didn’t have the chance to achieve.
Mia, who is 10/11, has a much easier time of it with regards to her mother. I don’t actually think that her parents expect much of her at all. She’s quirky, really not the same as her peers - something which we seem to value as an adult, but dread when we’re children.
Patrick, the father, is the hardest character for me to warm to. He’s having huge financial problems which are impacting on his family, yet he is keeping the extent of these difficulties from his wife. If it were me, I’d be livid!
This is a great book. I read it within two days because I just couldn’t put it down. I really enjoy these kinds of books - books about families and their issues. The style in which it was written really worked well for me too - I felt as though I was there in person, watching the story unfold (I suppose as a reader, I was!). They were all very human, relatable characters. The teenagers were well written as well. All too often teenagers are written as unpleasant, selfish and calculating, but here we could see their more sensitive, caring sides. They were all just trying to fit in, deal with growing up and their impending adulthood.
I’d recommend this book, there’s just so much to think about - and there’s such a good ending!
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publishers Michael Joseph for sending me a copy of this . It’s not a book that I would have immediately chosen to read, but I’m so glad that I did!
Grace had grown up in a very chaotic household and she doesn’t want that for her daughters. But when 17 year old Lilly collapses at school, it triggers a chain of events where the family members realise that there are consequences to keeping their secrets.
I actually liked the Vermuyden family. Grace is a mother trying her utmost to give her daughters all the things she never had. She can come across as a pushy ‘helicopter’ mother, but as the story progresses, we realise that there’s no wonder that she tries so hard. However, it can’t be easy for Lilly, who all of her efforts are directed at. She has a great responsibility: mainly to achieve all of the academic things that her mother didn’t have the chance to achieve.
Mia, who is 10/11, has a much easier time of it with regards to her mother. I don’t actually think that her parents expect much of her at all. She’s quirky, really not the same as her peers - something which we seem to value as an adult, but dread when we’re children.
Patrick, the father, is the hardest character for me to warm to. He’s having huge financial problems which are impacting on his family, yet he is keeping the extent of these difficulties from his wife. If it were me, I’d be livid!
This is a great book. I read it within two days because I just couldn’t put it down. I really enjoy these kinds of books - books about families and their issues. The style in which it was written really worked well for me too - I felt as though I was there in person, watching the story unfold (I suppose as a reader, I was!). They were all very human, relatable characters. The teenagers were well written as well. All too often teenagers are written as unpleasant, selfish and calculating, but here we could see their more sensitive, caring sides. They were all just trying to fit in, deal with growing up and their impending adulthood.
I’d recommend this book, there’s just so much to think about - and there’s such a good ending!
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publishers Michael Joseph for sending me a copy of this . It’s not a book that I would have immediately chosen to read, but I’m so glad that I did!
*＊✿❀ Maki ❀✿＊* (7 KP) rated The Warrior Heir (The Heir Chronicles, #1) in Books
May 3, 2018
[a:Cinda Williams Chima|125308|Cinda Williams Chima|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1291420167p2/125308.jpg] was my biggest takeaway from [b:The Way of the Wizard|8121665|The Way of the Wizard|John Joseph Adams|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1297656860s/8121665.jpg|12917149]. I absolutely adored the short story of how Linda and Hastings met, and knew that I had to read the actual series.
You can definitely tell that this was written a few years before the short story in The Way of the Wizard. The writing isn't quite on the same level - all of the key elements are still there, but in a rawer form.
That's not a bad thing. I'm not insulting the quality of the writing, at all. It was still a very enjoyable story, and the writing and the editing were solid. And I'm happy to watch the progression of the narrative, as it gets stronger over time.
...but. If I had read The Warrior Heir before I read "The Trader and the Slave", I probably would have enjoyed this book more than I did. Part of me kept waiting for the dark, grittiness that the short story had, and it never really showed up.
Were parts of The Warrior Heir heavy? Sure. There's a lot of double-crossing, morality, and self-sacrifice in there. But it wasn't quite the same.
Sorry for that slight detour there. I felt that, before I started talking about the book itself, I should explain the factors that went towards my final rating.
Because, in general, I loved this book. It was a lot of fun to read. I loved the "world" and the magic system, I loved the history and explanations of why magic works, and where it came from. The dedication to the magic system was very nice, and much appreciated in such an action-based fantasy book.
The main characters all managed to keep me interested in what was going on (even though there wasn't nearly enough Linda and Hastings in there for me), and the antagonists walked a delicate balance of being evil, and just doing what they thought would be best for themselves, or for those around them. Even some of the protagonists walked that line, which was <i>really</i> nice to see.
Morality - it's pretty important to the story.
There weren't really any surprises in the plot department. It was incredibly easy to guess the various "twists" the book had to offer. <spoiler>Especially anything having to do with Ellen.</spoiler> But personally, I was too distracted by the world-building to overly care about how predictable things were.
Because in Maki-land, well-established magic system > plot.
You can definitely tell that this was written a few years before the short story in The Way of the Wizard. The writing isn't quite on the same level - all of the key elements are still there, but in a rawer form.
That's not a bad thing. I'm not insulting the quality of the writing, at all. It was still a very enjoyable story, and the writing and the editing were solid. And I'm happy to watch the progression of the narrative, as it gets stronger over time.
...but. If I had read The Warrior Heir before I read "The Trader and the Slave", I probably would have enjoyed this book more than I did. Part of me kept waiting for the dark, grittiness that the short story had, and it never really showed up.
Were parts of The Warrior Heir heavy? Sure. There's a lot of double-crossing, morality, and self-sacrifice in there. But it wasn't quite the same.
Sorry for that slight detour there. I felt that, before I started talking about the book itself, I should explain the factors that went towards my final rating.
Because, in general, I loved this book. It was a lot of fun to read. I loved the "world" and the magic system, I loved the history and explanations of why magic works, and where it came from. The dedication to the magic system was very nice, and much appreciated in such an action-based fantasy book.
The main characters all managed to keep me interested in what was going on (even though there wasn't nearly enough Linda and Hastings in there for me), and the antagonists walked a delicate balance of being evil, and just doing what they thought would be best for themselves, or for those around them. Even some of the protagonists walked that line, which was <i>really</i> nice to see.
Morality - it's pretty important to the story.
There weren't really any surprises in the plot department. It was incredibly easy to guess the various "twists" the book had to offer. <spoiler>Especially anything having to do with Ellen.</spoiler> But personally, I was too distracted by the world-building to overly care about how predictable things were.
Because in Maki-land, well-established magic system > plot.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Dr. No (1962) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Characters – James Bond is on his first mission on the big screen, the resourceful British Spy that always seems to stay one step ahead of the enemies as he looks for answers to a colleague’s disappearance. We see how he is the womaniser we all know now and just how he can handle himself in a fight. Honey Ryder appears one hour into the film with one of the most iconic entrances in the franchise history, she assistance Bond on the mission with her knowledge of the island. Dr No is the mastermind behind the island plot, he keeps his plans secret and will get his men to eliminate any problems that come his way.
Performances – Sean Connery is great in his first outing as Bond, he uses the charm his character is famous for to make us want to come back for the next adventure. Ursula Andress is solid enough, she looks the part even if the character is mostly just made to be the damsel in distress. Joseph Wiseman does make for a good villain by the time we see him, he helps us reach the levels we know we can expect in the franchise.
Story – James Bond is one his first film mission, needing to show his skills to find a missing colleague against the first villain. This story is a simple one, it is designed to show us what James is capable off when it comes to save the world from a terrorist plot. This might not be the one everyone remembers because it does just introduce him without going too far with the difficulties of a mission that would need to be topped next time out. This is one that shows the style that he must work, the slow investigation before coming face to face with the villain.
Action/Adventure – The action gives us James the fight sequences needed to show how quickly he can get the job done when needed. The adventure takes our spy across the world to a tropical island, this time Jamaica to fight a villain.
Settings – The film is set in Jamaica, it gives us a tropical feeling from start to finish where we get to see the islands off the mainland as an early sign of where the bases for the masterminds will be.
Scene of the Movie – Base battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t meet the Bond girl till an hour into the film.
Final Thoughts –This is a great start to the Bond franchise, we get to learn Bond’s skills face a villain that has enough menace to be a threat and keep us ready for more.
Overall: Great start to the franchise.
Performances – Sean Connery is great in his first outing as Bond, he uses the charm his character is famous for to make us want to come back for the next adventure. Ursula Andress is solid enough, she looks the part even if the character is mostly just made to be the damsel in distress. Joseph Wiseman does make for a good villain by the time we see him, he helps us reach the levels we know we can expect in the franchise.
Story – James Bond is one his first film mission, needing to show his skills to find a missing colleague against the first villain. This story is a simple one, it is designed to show us what James is capable off when it comes to save the world from a terrorist plot. This might not be the one everyone remembers because it does just introduce him without going too far with the difficulties of a mission that would need to be topped next time out. This is one that shows the style that he must work, the slow investigation before coming face to face with the villain.
Action/Adventure – The action gives us James the fight sequences needed to show how quickly he can get the job done when needed. The adventure takes our spy across the world to a tropical island, this time Jamaica to fight a villain.
Settings – The film is set in Jamaica, it gives us a tropical feeling from start to finish where we get to see the islands off the mainland as an early sign of where the bases for the masterminds will be.
Scene of the Movie – Base battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t meet the Bond girl till an hour into the film.
Final Thoughts –This is a great start to the Bond franchise, we get to learn Bond’s skills face a villain that has enough menace to be a threat and keep us ready for more.
Overall: Great start to the franchise.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Mar 25, 2019
Jordan Peele does it again
2 years ago at this time, the comedian known as Jordan Peele was all the talk as his feature film Directorial debut, GET OUT was scaring mainstream audiences. This was quite the accomplishment for a first time African-American Director with a film that was, predominantly, cast with African American actors.
Director/Writer Peele is at it again with the horror film (predominantly filled with African-American actors )US - and audiences, I'm sure, are going to go back in to the theater hoping that they will get scared again. And they will, but they will also get something else - a truly unique film.
I see a lot of movies, so for me to be (1) scared and (2) completely surprised by what is going on in a film is a rarity, indeed. And Jordan Peele has done both of these things with US - he has scared and surprised me, and I mean this in a a good way.
US stars Lupito Nyong'o as Adelaide Wilson, a young mother who had a traumatic experience at the beach as a child. Now, as 30-ish mother of two who is visiting that same beach with her husband and 2 children, the traumatic experience comes rushing back. To tell anymore of the story would be to spoil it and to spoil this film for anyone would be a shame, for the fun in this film is trying to figure out what will happen next. Even when you think you know what's going to happen, something else happens instead and you are kept guessing throughout the film.
As far as the acting goes, Nyong'o shows that she can carry a film. I was beginning to fear that she would be one of those former Oscar winners (for 12 YEARS A SLAVE) who fade into obscurity, but this film puts her right back - front and center - on the map, a map that she deserves to be on. She carries this film - and she carries it well. Winston Duke (M'Baku in BLACK PANTHER) ably plays her husband, but is reserved (for the most part) as needed comic relief. I am always concerned when a heavy part of a film falls into the hands of unknown child actors, but Evan Alex (as their son) and - especially - Shahadi Wright Joseph (as their daughter) pull off the acting they need to do.
Credit for all this falls on Jordan Peele who's direction and script shows that GET OUT was no fluke. As I said before, this is a truly ORIGINAL film in plot and content and Peele keeps the action moving forward in interesting ways.
This is a film that needs to be seen more than once. I, for one, can't wait to go back into the theater and check out US again.
Letter Grade A- (but it might move to an A after a 2nd viewing)
8 out of 10 stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Director/Writer Peele is at it again with the horror film (predominantly filled with African-American actors )US - and audiences, I'm sure, are going to go back in to the theater hoping that they will get scared again. And they will, but they will also get something else - a truly unique film.
I see a lot of movies, so for me to be (1) scared and (2) completely surprised by what is going on in a film is a rarity, indeed. And Jordan Peele has done both of these things with US - he has scared and surprised me, and I mean this in a a good way.
US stars Lupito Nyong'o as Adelaide Wilson, a young mother who had a traumatic experience at the beach as a child. Now, as 30-ish mother of two who is visiting that same beach with her husband and 2 children, the traumatic experience comes rushing back. To tell anymore of the story would be to spoil it and to spoil this film for anyone would be a shame, for the fun in this film is trying to figure out what will happen next. Even when you think you know what's going to happen, something else happens instead and you are kept guessing throughout the film.
As far as the acting goes, Nyong'o shows that she can carry a film. I was beginning to fear that she would be one of those former Oscar winners (for 12 YEARS A SLAVE) who fade into obscurity, but this film puts her right back - front and center - on the map, a map that she deserves to be on. She carries this film - and she carries it well. Winston Duke (M'Baku in BLACK PANTHER) ably plays her husband, but is reserved (for the most part) as needed comic relief. I am always concerned when a heavy part of a film falls into the hands of unknown child actors, but Evan Alex (as their son) and - especially - Shahadi Wright Joseph (as their daughter) pull off the acting they need to do.
Credit for all this falls on Jordan Peele who's direction and script shows that GET OUT was no fluke. As I said before, this is a truly ORIGINAL film in plot and content and Peele keeps the action moving forward in interesting ways.
This is a film that needs to be seen more than once. I, for one, can't wait to go back into the theater and check out US again.
Letter Grade A- (but it might move to an A after a 2nd viewing)
8 out of 10 stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Snowden (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
As with every Oliver Stone movie, you have to consider context while watching it. Snowden is a persuasive essay attempting to turn the focus from the crime committed by Edward Snowden to the mass surveillance practices of the US government during the Bush and Obama administration. This story was huge when the leaks began hitting the internet and so I was very familiar with the story through the media coverage ensued. Through that coverage it was made to seem as though Snowden, a low level contractor, stole data and was putting it on the internet to spite the American government.
Later more information came forth that he wasn’t as low level as we were led to believe and that Snowden was claiming that he performed the illegal act out of love for his country, not out of spite to harm it. But for a large portion of the country the original story has already been burned into their brain and nothing short of Ronald Reagan descending from heaven to tell them otherwise will change that. A few months ago Donald Trump even called for Snowden’s execution, if that helps paint a picture of the mindset of a portion of the US population about Edward Snowden.
This movie was made to convince you otherwise, that Snowden was and still is a brave American hero. It tells the story beginning with his Special Forces training and takes you all the way through the incident and up to present day, with the actual infamous Edward Snowden closing out the movie. I won’t go into too much detail here because I hate when reviews ruin a movie but I will say that it covers the whole story right down to the Ocean Eleven’s esque way that he got the files out of secured US spy facility.
This movie surprisingly also weaves a love story in and out of the technical background of the data release and while I enjoyed that aspect of the movie, some of it made me question its authenticity… it wasn’t realistic at times how the two reacted to different problems that arose in their relationship.
I left the movie thinking how strange it was that the espionage was the most believable part of the movie and the love story seemed contrived.
Joseph Gorden-Levitt was awesome. I’ve watched enough Snowden videos to know that he nailed it. The love interest was cute and likeable, but the primary antagonist was a bit over the top for a movie based on reality. But I guess that’s what this movie was trying to tell me… that there are some seriously evil people working for our government.
The pacing was good, acting was great, subject matter was insanely interesting and the love story humanized the hacker/criminal/hero. Go see it with an open mind, consider the context with which the film was created and come to your own conclusion. Snowden… hero or villain?
Later more information came forth that he wasn’t as low level as we were led to believe and that Snowden was claiming that he performed the illegal act out of love for his country, not out of spite to harm it. But for a large portion of the country the original story has already been burned into their brain and nothing short of Ronald Reagan descending from heaven to tell them otherwise will change that. A few months ago Donald Trump even called for Snowden’s execution, if that helps paint a picture of the mindset of a portion of the US population about Edward Snowden.
This movie was made to convince you otherwise, that Snowden was and still is a brave American hero. It tells the story beginning with his Special Forces training and takes you all the way through the incident and up to present day, with the actual infamous Edward Snowden closing out the movie. I won’t go into too much detail here because I hate when reviews ruin a movie but I will say that it covers the whole story right down to the Ocean Eleven’s esque way that he got the files out of secured US spy facility.
This movie surprisingly also weaves a love story in and out of the technical background of the data release and while I enjoyed that aspect of the movie, some of it made me question its authenticity… it wasn’t realistic at times how the two reacted to different problems that arose in their relationship.
I left the movie thinking how strange it was that the espionage was the most believable part of the movie and the love story seemed contrived.
Joseph Gorden-Levitt was awesome. I’ve watched enough Snowden videos to know that he nailed it. The love interest was cute and likeable, but the primary antagonist was a bit over the top for a movie based on reality. But I guess that’s what this movie was trying to tell me… that there are some seriously evil people working for our government.
The pacing was good, acting was great, subject matter was insanely interesting and the love story humanized the hacker/criminal/hero. Go see it with an open mind, consider the context with which the film was created and come to your own conclusion. Snowden… hero or villain?
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Christian Bale reprises his role as Bruce Wayne/Batman in the final installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises,and is forced to come face to face with new villains once again. This time it is the terrorist leader Bane (Tom Hardy) and cat burglar, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway).
In the previous movie Batman had to combat the famed Joker who caused havoc in the city of Gotham. Joker convinced Harvey Dent to seek revenge against Batman and those responsible for the death of his lover, Rachel Dawes. Dent decides to use his lucky coin to decide the fate of those he assumes are responsible, Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and his family being just a few of the people captured within Dent’s grip of revenge. While Batman saved the life of Gordon’s young son, many still die. Batman decided to let the public think that he was the one responsible for all the deaths to keep Dent’s name in good standing with the public. Gordan on the other hand knows the truth.
The Dark Knight Rises is set eight years after the extensive damage the Joker brought upon the city and its residents. During this time, Batman isolated himself within the walls of Wayne Manor as Gotham rebuilt itself with the help of Gordon and John Blake (Joseph Gordon Leavitt).
During a celebration of Dent’s life and his successes, Gordan is tempted to tell the people of Gotham the truth behind the murders eight years ago but finds that it may not be the right time to do so. Terrorist leader Bane arrives and takes over the celebration and wounds Gordon forcing his subordinate Blake to take over. After Wayne learns that one of his projects he had been investing in over the years was actually being used for nuclear devices, Wayne decides to shut down the project. One of Wayne’s business rivals is suspected to have employed terrorist leader Bane to takeover the company and use its nuclear devices against the city.
After finding out the truth Bruce Wayne decides to return to the streets of Gotham as Batman, though the decision is met with great resistance by his trusty butler Alfred (Michael Caine). Bane has taken the lead in bringing Wayne Enterprises down and an intense confrontation leaves Batman hurt and condemned to an inescapable prison. Bane is left free to wreak uncontested havoc on Gotham, once again bringing a violent storm of perilous destruction upon its people. While Batman is stuck in Bane’s prison, we learn the sordid history of Bane.
To say much more would give a lot of the story away. Suffice it to say, The Dark Knight Rises is this year’s best comic book movie so far. The graphics, action, soundtrack and opening sequence are amazing. The storyline leaves you wanting more. Christopher Nolan has does an excellent job in all the installments of Batman but is remarkably exceptional in the third and final installment of the series.
In the previous movie Batman had to combat the famed Joker who caused havoc in the city of Gotham. Joker convinced Harvey Dent to seek revenge against Batman and those responsible for the death of his lover, Rachel Dawes. Dent decides to use his lucky coin to decide the fate of those he assumes are responsible, Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and his family being just a few of the people captured within Dent’s grip of revenge. While Batman saved the life of Gordon’s young son, many still die. Batman decided to let the public think that he was the one responsible for all the deaths to keep Dent’s name in good standing with the public. Gordan on the other hand knows the truth.
The Dark Knight Rises is set eight years after the extensive damage the Joker brought upon the city and its residents. During this time, Batman isolated himself within the walls of Wayne Manor as Gotham rebuilt itself with the help of Gordon and John Blake (Joseph Gordon Leavitt).
During a celebration of Dent’s life and his successes, Gordan is tempted to tell the people of Gotham the truth behind the murders eight years ago but finds that it may not be the right time to do so. Terrorist leader Bane arrives and takes over the celebration and wounds Gordon forcing his subordinate Blake to take over. After Wayne learns that one of his projects he had been investing in over the years was actually being used for nuclear devices, Wayne decides to shut down the project. One of Wayne’s business rivals is suspected to have employed terrorist leader Bane to takeover the company and use its nuclear devices against the city.
After finding out the truth Bruce Wayne decides to return to the streets of Gotham as Batman, though the decision is met with great resistance by his trusty butler Alfred (Michael Caine). Bane has taken the lead in bringing Wayne Enterprises down and an intense confrontation leaves Batman hurt and condemned to an inescapable prison. Bane is left free to wreak uncontested havoc on Gotham, once again bringing a violent storm of perilous destruction upon its people. While Batman is stuck in Bane’s prison, we learn the sordid history of Bane.
To say much more would give a lot of the story away. Suffice it to say, The Dark Knight Rises is this year’s best comic book movie so far. The graphics, action, soundtrack and opening sequence are amazing. The storyline leaves you wanting more. Christopher Nolan has does an excellent job in all the installments of Batman but is remarkably exceptional in the third and final installment of the series.