Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Muppets - Season 1 in TV
Oct 9, 2020
Intelligently funny
The Muppets is a 2015 mockumentary style series that aired for only one season, and is currently available on Disney+ . It follows the personal and professional lives of the Muppets behind the scenes of Miss Piggy's late night talk show.
The Muppets are an institution. There won’t be many people that don’t know of the Muppets, and most will have grown up with them in some form whether it be the original tv show, the earlier films or the most recent film reincarnations with Jason Segel. For me, my fondest memories of the Muppets come from the films (The Muppet Christmas Carol is by far the best Christmas film) and from the Muppet Vision 3D show in Disney World, so I had no preconceptions over what this show would be. And it’s an absolute hoot.
This is a wonderfully funny and smart show, and the mockumentary style similar to The Office and Parks and Recereation works very well. It manages to bring clever adult humour without reducing itself to crudeness. It’s whip smart, witty and full of relevant pop culture references that are often laugh out loud funny. There are so many instances in these 16 episodes where I couldn’t stop laughing, although a particularly highlight involved Bobo the bear and The Revenant. And not only is this funny, it’s also full of heart. It features some fairly meaningful and important topics and for the most part it deals with these well with an appropriate amount of humour.
The great thing about this show is that it isn’t just the Kermit and Piggy show. All of the other Muppets are featured in equal measure and for me personally I loved this as some of my favourite moments were with the likes of Rizzo, Pepe and Chip the IT guy. I also now have a new found love for Uncle Deadly, I never realised how brilliant a character he was before! This show also brings in some fantastic guest stars, from the likes of Reese Witherspoon and Joseph Gordon-Levitt to Liam Hemsworth, Ru Paul and Josh Groban, all of whom have no problem in sending themselves up and being the butt of the jokes.
It’s a shame then that this show falters two thirds of the way through due to the storyline and relationship between Kermit and Piggy. I’ve never been a fan of Piggy as I find her very irksome, but she’s bearable in small doses. However the show seems to do a complete u-turn on their storyline midway through and suffers because of it, as it becomes dull and predictable and nothing we haven’t seen before for Kermit and Piggy. The rest of the show and characters are still hilarious, but Kermit and Piggy really bring down the tone.
If you’re an adult and a fan of the Muppets and are looking for some adult, intelligent laugh out loud humour, you can’t really go wrong with this. Just try not to concentrate on the storyline too much.
The Muppets are an institution. There won’t be many people that don’t know of the Muppets, and most will have grown up with them in some form whether it be the original tv show, the earlier films or the most recent film reincarnations with Jason Segel. For me, my fondest memories of the Muppets come from the films (The Muppet Christmas Carol is by far the best Christmas film) and from the Muppet Vision 3D show in Disney World, so I had no preconceptions over what this show would be. And it’s an absolute hoot.
This is a wonderfully funny and smart show, and the mockumentary style similar to The Office and Parks and Recereation works very well. It manages to bring clever adult humour without reducing itself to crudeness. It’s whip smart, witty and full of relevant pop culture references that are often laugh out loud funny. There are so many instances in these 16 episodes where I couldn’t stop laughing, although a particularly highlight involved Bobo the bear and The Revenant. And not only is this funny, it’s also full of heart. It features some fairly meaningful and important topics and for the most part it deals with these well with an appropriate amount of humour.
The great thing about this show is that it isn’t just the Kermit and Piggy show. All of the other Muppets are featured in equal measure and for me personally I loved this as some of my favourite moments were with the likes of Rizzo, Pepe and Chip the IT guy. I also now have a new found love for Uncle Deadly, I never realised how brilliant a character he was before! This show also brings in some fantastic guest stars, from the likes of Reese Witherspoon and Joseph Gordon-Levitt to Liam Hemsworth, Ru Paul and Josh Groban, all of whom have no problem in sending themselves up and being the butt of the jokes.
It’s a shame then that this show falters two thirds of the way through due to the storyline and relationship between Kermit and Piggy. I’ve never been a fan of Piggy as I find her very irksome, but she’s bearable in small doses. However the show seems to do a complete u-turn on their storyline midway through and suffers because of it, as it becomes dull and predictable and nothing we haven’t seen before for Kermit and Piggy. The rest of the show and characters are still hilarious, but Kermit and Piggy really bring down the tone.
If you’re an adult and a fan of the Muppets and are looking for some adult, intelligent laugh out loud humour, you can’t really go wrong with this. Just try not to concentrate on the storyline too much.
Debbiereadsbook (1110 KP) rated Bad, Dad, And Dangerous Anthology in Books
Oct 15, 2020
great box set!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this box set.
These are four unrelated stories save for the common thread that one of the main characters is a single dad and a paranormal being.
I read all four, but I only really enjoyed 3.
KISMET & CADAVERS BY JENN MOFFATT
I haven't read anything by Ms Moffatt before, but I hope I get to soon! I LOVED this! Thomas and KJ met years ago, and Thomas felt that connection. His daughter moving up from KJ's class at school gives him the perfect chance. But things are getting in the way, and a dark magic has to be dealt with.
I loved the cat in this, I really did. You don't get many undead cats playing a huge part in stories and he made me laugh, how he is with Thomas. And that he likes KJ.
It's funny, and sexy and this was my favourite, along with the next one!
WOLF AT FIRST SIGHT BY RHYS FORD
This is a novella from the Wayward Wolves series (currently only one book!) but you don't need to have read that book to follow this.
Joesph's Nana frequents the pub he is watching. The owner is rather easy on the eye, but Levi isn't the only one keeping secrets from Joesph.
Joseph and Levi have immediate attraction and it takes them time to act on that. I loved that most of the people in the pub are not what they seem and the solution to Levi's Peacekeeping problem wasn't what I saw coming.
And it was sweet, dammit!
MONSTER HALL PASS BY BRU BAKER
Vampires with a twist!
Hugh is a vampire who feeds on energy, NEGATIVE energy gives the biggest boost. So once a year, when his daughter is at camp, he goes off to help his police friends deal with their more dangerous criminals. Meeting a Fae who can smell Hugh's daughter and then goes off on one at him, wasn't really in the plan this summer. When Rykoff reveals the truth about Hugh's daughter, he knows he needs help.
Cute, really cute. I enjoyed this one, not quite as much as the first two mentioned but I did enjoy it. I'd read more of these sorts of vampires, I really would!
ELF SHOT BY TA MOORE
I didn't like this one as much as the other three, I got a bit lost along the way with this. But still, a good read, just not a great one (Sorry!)
A thoroughly enjoyable way to spend a few hours with new to me, as well as not-so-new authors. Ms Baker and Moffatt are now sat on my wish list!
4 good solid stars across the whole set, But 5 for Kismet and Cadavers and for Wolf at First Sight.
~same worded review will appear elsewhere~
These are four unrelated stories save for the common thread that one of the main characters is a single dad and a paranormal being.
I read all four, but I only really enjoyed 3.
KISMET & CADAVERS BY JENN MOFFATT
I haven't read anything by Ms Moffatt before, but I hope I get to soon! I LOVED this! Thomas and KJ met years ago, and Thomas felt that connection. His daughter moving up from KJ's class at school gives him the perfect chance. But things are getting in the way, and a dark magic has to be dealt with.
I loved the cat in this, I really did. You don't get many undead cats playing a huge part in stories and he made me laugh, how he is with Thomas. And that he likes KJ.
It's funny, and sexy and this was my favourite, along with the next one!
WOLF AT FIRST SIGHT BY RHYS FORD
This is a novella from the Wayward Wolves series (currently only one book!) but you don't need to have read that book to follow this.
Joesph's Nana frequents the pub he is watching. The owner is rather easy on the eye, but Levi isn't the only one keeping secrets from Joesph.
Joseph and Levi have immediate attraction and it takes them time to act on that. I loved that most of the people in the pub are not what they seem and the solution to Levi's Peacekeeping problem wasn't what I saw coming.
And it was sweet, dammit!
MONSTER HALL PASS BY BRU BAKER
Vampires with a twist!
Hugh is a vampire who feeds on energy, NEGATIVE energy gives the biggest boost. So once a year, when his daughter is at camp, he goes off to help his police friends deal with their more dangerous criminals. Meeting a Fae who can smell Hugh's daughter and then goes off on one at him, wasn't really in the plan this summer. When Rykoff reveals the truth about Hugh's daughter, he knows he needs help.
Cute, really cute. I enjoyed this one, not quite as much as the first two mentioned but I did enjoy it. I'd read more of these sorts of vampires, I really would!
ELF SHOT BY TA MOORE
I didn't like this one as much as the other three, I got a bit lost along the way with this. But still, a good read, just not a great one (Sorry!)
A thoroughly enjoyable way to spend a few hours with new to me, as well as not-so-new authors. Ms Baker and Moffatt are now sat on my wish list!
4 good solid stars across the whole set, But 5 for Kismet and Cadavers and for Wolf at First Sight.
~same worded review will appear elsewhere~
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spiderhead (2022) in Movies
Jun 26, 2022
Weak Script Sinks This Flick
The history of cinema is littered with tales of the Mad Scientist who gets too caught up in their own experiments to the detriment of all. Once the human cost of the experiment is revealed to this seemingly sane inventor, he (it usually is a he) turns with a wild-eyed look and justifies the human expense in the name of science.
Such is the case with the Netflix Original movie SPIDERHEAD with Chris Hemsworth as the mad scientist in this scenario and Miles Teller and Jurnee Smollett as 2 of the prisoners who trade in their life sentences to be used as guinea pigs in his experiment.
It’s an interesting enough premise - one that is not new - so it is always the execution of this concept that makes (or breaks) this type of film.
Unfortunately for SPIDERHEAD, Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are unable to elevate the premise (based on a short story by George Saunders) into anything new, unique or interesting.
Director Joseph Kosinski (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) does a yeoman’s job trying to elevate this material to something better than it is. But…kind of like trying to get me to be a Prima Ballerina…Kosinski just cannot make something out of raw material that is fundamentally flawed. He uses a few interesting camera moves and draws out suspense in enough areas to catch the audience’s interests…but not much else.
He is helped by the casting of some top notch talent. Chris Hemsworth is engaging and charismatic (initially) as the Elon Musk/Steve Jobs-esque new age inventor who is trying out some new medical serums on prisoner/volunteers. The problem with Hemsworth - who I think is a pretty good actor - is that once you start seeing the cracks in his character’s façade (and those cracks appear early on), Hemsworth’s performance turns fairly one-dimensional and he becomes a caricature of the “crazed scientist”.
The surprises to me here are the performances of Miles Teller (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) and Jurnee Smollett (LOVECRAFT COUNTRY). These are 2 performers who I’ve always felt were good but not great, but they are intriguing to watch in this. They have strong chemistry with each other and they are 2 protagonists that are easy to root for against crazed antagonist Hemsworth.
In look and feel and tone, this film reminded my of the 2014 Alex Garland marvel EX MACHINA, but where that film easily was lifted by a tremendously strong script and ideas by Garland (check it out if you haven’t seen it - it is well worth your time), SPIDERHEAD, ultimately, sinks into the chasm of a weak script with no real strong ideas/themes behind it.
Letter Grade B+ (for the Direction of Kosinksi and the performances of Teller and Smollett)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the Netflix Original movie SPIDERHEAD with Chris Hemsworth as the mad scientist in this scenario and Miles Teller and Jurnee Smollett as 2 of the prisoners who trade in their life sentences to be used as guinea pigs in his experiment.
It’s an interesting enough premise - one that is not new - so it is always the execution of this concept that makes (or breaks) this type of film.
Unfortunately for SPIDERHEAD, Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are unable to elevate the premise (based on a short story by George Saunders) into anything new, unique or interesting.
Director Joseph Kosinski (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) does a yeoman’s job trying to elevate this material to something better than it is. But…kind of like trying to get me to be a Prima Ballerina…Kosinski just cannot make something out of raw material that is fundamentally flawed. He uses a few interesting camera moves and draws out suspense in enough areas to catch the audience’s interests…but not much else.
He is helped by the casting of some top notch talent. Chris Hemsworth is engaging and charismatic (initially) as the Elon Musk/Steve Jobs-esque new age inventor who is trying out some new medical serums on prisoner/volunteers. The problem with Hemsworth - who I think is a pretty good actor - is that once you start seeing the cracks in his character’s façade (and those cracks appear early on), Hemsworth’s performance turns fairly one-dimensional and he becomes a caricature of the “crazed scientist”.
The surprises to me here are the performances of Miles Teller (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) and Jurnee Smollett (LOVECRAFT COUNTRY). These are 2 performers who I’ve always felt were good but not great, but they are intriguing to watch in this. They have strong chemistry with each other and they are 2 protagonists that are easy to root for against crazed antagonist Hemsworth.
In look and feel and tone, this film reminded my of the 2014 Alex Garland marvel EX MACHINA, but where that film easily was lifted by a tremendously strong script and ideas by Garland (check it out if you haven’t seen it - it is well worth your time), SPIDERHEAD, ultimately, sinks into the chasm of a weak script with no real strong ideas/themes behind it.
Letter Grade B+ (for the Direction of Kosinksi and the performances of Teller and Smollett)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Looper (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In the world of 2072, it is learned that time travel has been invented and is declared illegal by all the governments of the world. Naturally, the criminal elements of the future embrace the technology. Apparently getting rid of bodies and people in the future is tricky because of innovative tagging and tracking technology.
The criminal bosses of the future send a man named Abe (Jeff Bridges) 30 years into the past to serve the criminals of the future with a new type of hit man called a Looper. In the new film “Looper” Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, a Looper who never lets morals get in the way of his job. He is happy to promptly dispatch anyone sent from the future without a second thought.
Joe is well paid for his work, and is happy to enjoy the drugs and women that come with his job. Yet Joe desires to leave it all one day and travel to France. For a Looper to be retired, he is forced to kill a future version of himself, and in doing so, gets a fantastic retirement payout and 30 years to live it up since that is how long it will take for time travel to be invented. Naturally an older version of yourself cannot be sent back to be killed by your younger self for at least 30 years. But the increase in retirements is a bit disconcerting for Joe.
Things change drastically for Joe when his older self (Bruce Willis), appears and manages to escape before he can be killed by his younger self. For a Looper to have his target escape is a serious infraction, and in no time, Joe finds himself not only hunting his older self, but also on the run from his former friends and allies who have made him both older and younger a priority.
At this point in the film, I was hooked, as my mind raced with twists, possibilities, and the promise of the film. Sadly the momentum grinds to a halt in the second half as the older Joe attempts to ally with his younger self to stop a future crime boss while he is a child. This quickly becomes a very blatant “Terminator” rip off as older Joe attempts to locate and kill children who may be the future crime lord while younger Joe is biding his time hiding from his former associates while protecting a young child and his mother from his older self.
It does not take much thought to see where this is going but sadly the remainder of the movie is underwhelming and disappointing as the film recycles scenarios that we have seen many times before in better movies. The second half lacks any real action and climactic finale to give the audience the well-deserved payoff they waited for.
Willis, Bridges, and Gordon-Levitt do solid work but seem to be going through the motions as they never really earn any sympathy from the audience. Much like last year’s “In Time”, “Looper” has a great premise that starts well and then fails to live up to its potential.
The criminal bosses of the future send a man named Abe (Jeff Bridges) 30 years into the past to serve the criminals of the future with a new type of hit man called a Looper. In the new film “Looper” Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, a Looper who never lets morals get in the way of his job. He is happy to promptly dispatch anyone sent from the future without a second thought.
Joe is well paid for his work, and is happy to enjoy the drugs and women that come with his job. Yet Joe desires to leave it all one day and travel to France. For a Looper to be retired, he is forced to kill a future version of himself, and in doing so, gets a fantastic retirement payout and 30 years to live it up since that is how long it will take for time travel to be invented. Naturally an older version of yourself cannot be sent back to be killed by your younger self for at least 30 years. But the increase in retirements is a bit disconcerting for Joe.
Things change drastically for Joe when his older self (Bruce Willis), appears and manages to escape before he can be killed by his younger self. For a Looper to have his target escape is a serious infraction, and in no time, Joe finds himself not only hunting his older self, but also on the run from his former friends and allies who have made him both older and younger a priority.
At this point in the film, I was hooked, as my mind raced with twists, possibilities, and the promise of the film. Sadly the momentum grinds to a halt in the second half as the older Joe attempts to ally with his younger self to stop a future crime boss while he is a child. This quickly becomes a very blatant “Terminator” rip off as older Joe attempts to locate and kill children who may be the future crime lord while younger Joe is biding his time hiding from his former associates while protecting a young child and his mother from his older self.
It does not take much thought to see where this is going but sadly the remainder of the movie is underwhelming and disappointing as the film recycles scenarios that we have seen many times before in better movies. The second half lacks any real action and climactic finale to give the audience the well-deserved payoff they waited for.
Willis, Bridges, and Gordon-Levitt do solid work but seem to be going through the motions as they never really earn any sympathy from the audience. Much like last year’s “In Time”, “Looper” has a great premise that starts well and then fails to live up to its potential.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020 (Updated Oct 19, 2020)
Fascinating
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is Aaron Sorkin’s second foray into directing, a dramatisation of the true story of 7 people on trial following the events at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Top Gun: Maverick (2022) in Movies
Jun 1, 2022
The very definition of "Summer Flick"
There is absolutely no denying it - TOP GUN: MAVERICK is the very definition of a “Summer Blockbuster” movie - the kind of film that will appeal to a wide variety of audiences who want nothing more than to escape into a world of heroes (and villains), good vs. evil, with lots of fast chases and things exploding.
And that is just what you get with the sequel to the 1986 hit - a summer blockbuster, which will do well at the box office - just don’t expect tricky plot developments or in-depth character examinations. The plot and the characters are just there to deliver the blockbuster goods.
Bringing back the main character from the first TOP GUN film, Tom Cruise as Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, TOP GUN: MAVERICK shows Maverick 30 years (or so) after the events of the first film with “just one more” mission to go. Maverick is brought back to train a dozen hot-shot pilots, including one that is the son of his best friend - a friend who’s death Maverick has been traumatized by during the past 30 years.
Cruise, of course, is perfect in this role. He has the right blend of arrogance and charisma to pull of the fine balance needed between these two traits. Jennifer Connelly is on board as the requisite love interest and she more than holds her own with Cruise in what is an underwritten role as are all of the roles in this film by writer Peter Craig (BAD BOYS FOR LIFE) with Direction by Joseph Kosinski (OBLIVION).
Miles Teller (the son of the man who Maverick is mourning, who blames Maverick for his dad’s death), John Hamm (the a-hole boss that thinks that Maverick is “writing checks his body can’t cash”), Glen Powell (the arrogant young hot shot) and the rest are all one-note caricatures that leaves the audience not really caring about their fate.
Only Val Kilmer (reprising his role as “Iceman” from the first movie) comes out of this unscathed for his character is suffering from throat cancer and cannot speak above a whisper (much like Kilmer in real life). It was good to see him on the big screen again.
But…you don’t come to this film for the characters, you come to this picture for the high-flying action sequences, and…in the last part of this film…you get ‘em in spades! Unfortunately, you get way too LITTLE action in the first part of this film, it’s mostly nostalgic fond remembrances of the first film, so I found myself wriggling in my seat waiting for the action that I knew was to come.
It’s the perfect summer movie and one that is far more superior being seen on the big screen. It is the type of flick that one doesn’t have to pay to close attention to, but when it does grab your attention, it does it well…enough.
If you have the need…the need for speed…you can do much worse than TOP GUN: MAVERICK.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is just what you get with the sequel to the 1986 hit - a summer blockbuster, which will do well at the box office - just don’t expect tricky plot developments or in-depth character examinations. The plot and the characters are just there to deliver the blockbuster goods.
Bringing back the main character from the first TOP GUN film, Tom Cruise as Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, TOP GUN: MAVERICK shows Maverick 30 years (or so) after the events of the first film with “just one more” mission to go. Maverick is brought back to train a dozen hot-shot pilots, including one that is the son of his best friend - a friend who’s death Maverick has been traumatized by during the past 30 years.
Cruise, of course, is perfect in this role. He has the right blend of arrogance and charisma to pull of the fine balance needed between these two traits. Jennifer Connelly is on board as the requisite love interest and she more than holds her own with Cruise in what is an underwritten role as are all of the roles in this film by writer Peter Craig (BAD BOYS FOR LIFE) with Direction by Joseph Kosinski (OBLIVION).
Miles Teller (the son of the man who Maverick is mourning, who blames Maverick for his dad’s death), John Hamm (the a-hole boss that thinks that Maverick is “writing checks his body can’t cash”), Glen Powell (the arrogant young hot shot) and the rest are all one-note caricatures that leaves the audience not really caring about their fate.
Only Val Kilmer (reprising his role as “Iceman” from the first movie) comes out of this unscathed for his character is suffering from throat cancer and cannot speak above a whisper (much like Kilmer in real life). It was good to see him on the big screen again.
But…you don’t come to this film for the characters, you come to this picture for the high-flying action sequences, and…in the last part of this film…you get ‘em in spades! Unfortunately, you get way too LITTLE action in the first part of this film, it’s mostly nostalgic fond remembrances of the first film, so I found myself wriggling in my seat waiting for the action that I knew was to come.
It’s the perfect summer movie and one that is far more superior being seen on the big screen. It is the type of flick that one doesn’t have to pay to close attention to, but when it does grab your attention, it does it well…enough.
If you have the need…the need for speed…you can do much worse than TOP GUN: MAVERICK.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Keeper (DCI Antonia Hawkins, #3) in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also read it here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/the-keeper-by-alastair-gunn
NOW AVAILABLE IN THE UK!
<i>No interesting quote for this book I'm afraid...</i>
This started badly, for me. Theres nothing like starting a new detective book and being planted in the middle of a therapy session. Who would have thought a senior police officer who has enough baggage to need therapy? Well I never! Thats something Ive only seen done 1 million times before <i>sigh.</i> Thank God it picked up with the excitement afterwards because I wasnt interested in Hawkins anxiety or love life.
This was by no means unique to other detective novels out there. They all have the same sort of plot and characters and themes, but this one did keep me more interested than some of the others Ive read, purely because there was a humorous side to it as well as the serious side too.
This had some really exciting moments and it had some really drawn out, drab moments where we were repeatedly updated on how the case was going, even though we already knew cause we were reading the book so I think a lot of this novel could have been cut down to make a shorter novel. 400 pages is quite a lot for a detective series novel, especially one where theres not a lot of evidence or leads to the case. This really was up and down, up and down, the whole way through. I lost interest so much in some places that I was completely distracted while reading it but then when we got onto a big reveal or breakthrough part, I rushed through it to know what happened next! There were some really great edge of the seat, nail biting moments! It was quite the hit and miss story.
As far as characters go, there werent any that I really connected with very well, but none of them were dislikable people. It could get a bit confusing to remember who was who because theyd go from their first name to their last name, back to their first name and then their last name again etc etc. It would have been nice to have some consistency with what the author called them.
This was by far a 3 star read until the twist at the end. I mean, really, I should have seen it coming, Ive read a million crime thrillers before, but I just hadnt suspected this one! Really, there were two twists at the end of this, the first one shocked me and then the second one I was expecting because of the first. The ending of this novel was really thrilling and nerve-wracking, it was a great way to finish it off.
Also, considering this is the third novel in a series (something Netgalley hadnt made me aware of when I requested it!) this did really well as a standalone novel. I didnt feel like I was missing any part of the characters stories, even when it came to the subject of Hawkins therapy sessions.
Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin UK - Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
NOW AVAILABLE IN THE UK!
<i>No interesting quote for this book I'm afraid...</i>
This started badly, for me. Theres nothing like starting a new detective book and being planted in the middle of a therapy session. Who would have thought a senior police officer who has enough baggage to need therapy? Well I never! Thats something Ive only seen done 1 million times before <i>sigh.</i> Thank God it picked up with the excitement afterwards because I wasnt interested in Hawkins anxiety or love life.
This was by no means unique to other detective novels out there. They all have the same sort of plot and characters and themes, but this one did keep me more interested than some of the others Ive read, purely because there was a humorous side to it as well as the serious side too.
This had some really exciting moments and it had some really drawn out, drab moments where we were repeatedly updated on how the case was going, even though we already knew cause we were reading the book so I think a lot of this novel could have been cut down to make a shorter novel. 400 pages is quite a lot for a detective series novel, especially one where theres not a lot of evidence or leads to the case. This really was up and down, up and down, the whole way through. I lost interest so much in some places that I was completely distracted while reading it but then when we got onto a big reveal or breakthrough part, I rushed through it to know what happened next! There were some really great edge of the seat, nail biting moments! It was quite the hit and miss story.
As far as characters go, there werent any that I really connected with very well, but none of them were dislikable people. It could get a bit confusing to remember who was who because theyd go from their first name to their last name, back to their first name and then their last name again etc etc. It would have been nice to have some consistency with what the author called them.
This was by far a 3 star read until the twist at the end. I mean, really, I should have seen it coming, Ive read a million crime thrillers before, but I just hadnt suspected this one! Really, there were two twists at the end of this, the first one shocked me and then the second one I was expecting because of the first. The ending of this novel was really thrilling and nerve-wracking, it was a great way to finish it off.
Also, considering this is the third novel in a series (something Netgalley hadnt made me aware of when I requested it!) this did really well as a standalone novel. I didnt feel like I was missing any part of the characters stories, even when it came to the subject of Hawkins therapy sessions.
Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin UK - Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Knight of Cups (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I’ll just come out and say it … This movie for all it’s grandeur with its ensemble cast and it’s amazing photographic work and direction is something that should be shown at film festivals and in art house movie theaters and NOT your mainstream chain theaters. Someplace where you can order a meal and perhaps a glass of wine or a local ale. Why? If the movie has Christian Bale in its cast you know there’s going to be drama involved regardless of whether or not the movie itself is dramatic. THIS particular film is a drama that could be compared to something written by Shakespeare.
‘Knight Of Cups’ is a romantic drama written and directed by Terrence Malick and stars an ensemble cast including Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Antonio Banderas, Natalie Portman, Brian Dennehy, Armin Muller-Stahl, Isabel Lucas, Freida Pinto, Wes Bentley, Imogen Poots, Teresa Palmer, and Peter Matthiessen.
“Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep.”
Rick (Bale) is a successful writer born into a powerful family in L.A. The son of Joseph (Dennehy) and brother to Barry (Bently). After the lose of a second brother as well as his mother, Rick becomes disillusioned and loses himself in the excesses found in the ‘City Of Angles’ and nearby Las Vegas. Along this aimless journey he encounters 6 different women Nancy (Blanchett) a doctor, Elizabeth (Portman) a married woman, Helen (Pinto), Isabel (Lucas), Karen (Palmer), and Della (Poots) looking to form some sort of bond or connection. Perhaps even to discover love only to encounter more lose. He wanders from cities, to beaches, then from mountains to deserts. Searching for something meaningful, some purpose all the while trying to hold what remains of his family and his own sanity together and along the way encounters a cast of colorful characters who have their own ideas about life and their own views on how he should live his.
This film was pretty much Malick’s attempt at making an art film with a large budget and a star studded cast. That’s just the thing. He succeeded and it was just too much. From a technical standpoint, it was wonderfully directed with its landscapes and ‘not-the-norm’ angles and close-ups but it simultaneously took away from the people and the story. It was almost as though they were trying to combine a film on the Discovery Channel with a drama. The film was two minutes shy of 2 hours long. Had the director been able to shave 20 minutes from it, then I could see it given a limited run in major theaters. I have to give kudos to the actors and actresses who were on top of their game which made the film worth sitting through once. The film is rated R for scenes of violence, nudity, and language. If you’re enduring one of those days where you just need to disappear and NOT communicate with anyone for a while, go see this movie. It’s runtime and complexity will help take your mind off your troubles. I’d highly recommend though that you save the film for viewing at home. I’ll give this film 3 out of 5 stars.
‘Knight Of Cups’ is a romantic drama written and directed by Terrence Malick and stars an ensemble cast including Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Antonio Banderas, Natalie Portman, Brian Dennehy, Armin Muller-Stahl, Isabel Lucas, Freida Pinto, Wes Bentley, Imogen Poots, Teresa Palmer, and Peter Matthiessen.
“Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep.”
Rick (Bale) is a successful writer born into a powerful family in L.A. The son of Joseph (Dennehy) and brother to Barry (Bently). After the lose of a second brother as well as his mother, Rick becomes disillusioned and loses himself in the excesses found in the ‘City Of Angles’ and nearby Las Vegas. Along this aimless journey he encounters 6 different women Nancy (Blanchett) a doctor, Elizabeth (Portman) a married woman, Helen (Pinto), Isabel (Lucas), Karen (Palmer), and Della (Poots) looking to form some sort of bond or connection. Perhaps even to discover love only to encounter more lose. He wanders from cities, to beaches, then from mountains to deserts. Searching for something meaningful, some purpose all the while trying to hold what remains of his family and his own sanity together and along the way encounters a cast of colorful characters who have their own ideas about life and their own views on how he should live his.
This film was pretty much Malick’s attempt at making an art film with a large budget and a star studded cast. That’s just the thing. He succeeded and it was just too much. From a technical standpoint, it was wonderfully directed with its landscapes and ‘not-the-norm’ angles and close-ups but it simultaneously took away from the people and the story. It was almost as though they were trying to combine a film on the Discovery Channel with a drama. The film was two minutes shy of 2 hours long. Had the director been able to shave 20 minutes from it, then I could see it given a limited run in major theaters. I have to give kudos to the actors and actresses who were on top of their game which made the film worth sitting through once. The film is rated R for scenes of violence, nudity, and language. If you’re enduring one of those days where you just need to disappear and NOT communicate with anyone for a while, go see this movie. It’s runtime and complexity will help take your mind off your troubles. I’d highly recommend though that you save the film for viewing at home. I’ll give this film 3 out of 5 stars.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Downfall (Der Untergang) (2004) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
The true story of the last days of NAZI Germany, focusing on Hitler and his cohorts as they sought refuge on his Berlin Bunker and is chronicled here with such honesty.
Told in a straight forward manner, we are given a portrait of not only Adolf Hitler himself, played perfectly by Bruno Ganz, who manages to humanize him without ever apologising for his heinous acts, but also those close to him. Shown through the young eyes of his final secretary, Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara), we are given a picture of what The Third Reich was to those who believed in it as well as what it had become for those who would suffer at it bloody hands.
Directed by Hirschbiegel to put us, the audience in the anterooms with these monsters, we are placed into a complex environment, edgy, atmospheric and most of all, real, as we witness noble acts of patriotism, conscience and pure, despicable horror, none less so that Magda Geobells, with the full consent of her husband, Joseph, first drugging, then murdering their six children as they slept, rather than “let them live in a world without national socialism.”
The only redeeming factors were their eventual suicides and in terms of the film, their first rate performances throughout this harrowing scene. Corinna Harfouch, who portrays Magda manages to portray this evil woman yet convey the emotion which was subdued deep beneath the surface. No small feat to allow such a fleeting glimpse of humanity during such and inhuman act.
But the same must be said Bruno Ganz, who manages to portray Hitler with such humanity; whilst showing us the true nature of his monstrosities, highlighting that the REAL monsters live among us and can seduce us at any time, any where, especially when we are vulnerable.
During one of the film’s early scenes, Hitler and Albert Speer (Heino Ferch), his Armaments Minister, discussing his vision for The Third Reich as he looks over a model of the new Germany which would be built after he won the war, a Germany without department stores, instead focusing on art, literature and culture.
Surely a noble goal, but as we all know, this cultural hub would have been built at an unacceptable cost, mainly with the blood of those who Hitler and his cohorts deemed to be inferior.
This is one of many clever methods used to convey a fair portrait of Hitler and The Third Reich. To demonstrate how bad they were, you first have to show impartiality, pointing out the good in what they do, play devil’s advocate as it were. Because whether we like it or not, evil motives are often built upon decent goals.
But as this film demonstrates, as Hitler shows his destine for anyone, even his own people, who will not give their lives for HIS vision of Germany, his Third Reich was being eaten away by a cancer of his own making, a Germany rotting from the very top.
Downfall is without a doubt one of the best World War 2 films which I have ever seen, delivering a compelling and immersive look behind the scenes of one of the most important defeats in modern history.
But being British and having to follow this with subtitles, which was great as watching this in its native German only adds to the experience, it can be a bit difficult to keep up with every plot machination, as we spend two and half hours reading about troop deployments, tactics and the philosophy of the Third Reich as we are presented with such atmospheric work, but if you can keep up with but the text and visuals, this is one hell of an education for those who do not know and an immersive masterpiece for those who follow WW2 history.
Told in a straight forward manner, we are given a portrait of not only Adolf Hitler himself, played perfectly by Bruno Ganz, who manages to humanize him without ever apologising for his heinous acts, but also those close to him. Shown through the young eyes of his final secretary, Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara), we are given a picture of what The Third Reich was to those who believed in it as well as what it had become for those who would suffer at it bloody hands.
Directed by Hirschbiegel to put us, the audience in the anterooms with these monsters, we are placed into a complex environment, edgy, atmospheric and most of all, real, as we witness noble acts of patriotism, conscience and pure, despicable horror, none less so that Magda Geobells, with the full consent of her husband, Joseph, first drugging, then murdering their six children as they slept, rather than “let them live in a world without national socialism.”
The only redeeming factors were their eventual suicides and in terms of the film, their first rate performances throughout this harrowing scene. Corinna Harfouch, who portrays Magda manages to portray this evil woman yet convey the emotion which was subdued deep beneath the surface. No small feat to allow such a fleeting glimpse of humanity during such and inhuman act.
But the same must be said Bruno Ganz, who manages to portray Hitler with such humanity; whilst showing us the true nature of his monstrosities, highlighting that the REAL monsters live among us and can seduce us at any time, any where, especially when we are vulnerable.
During one of the film’s early scenes, Hitler and Albert Speer (Heino Ferch), his Armaments Minister, discussing his vision for The Third Reich as he looks over a model of the new Germany which would be built after he won the war, a Germany without department stores, instead focusing on art, literature and culture.
Surely a noble goal, but as we all know, this cultural hub would have been built at an unacceptable cost, mainly with the blood of those who Hitler and his cohorts deemed to be inferior.
This is one of many clever methods used to convey a fair portrait of Hitler and The Third Reich. To demonstrate how bad they were, you first have to show impartiality, pointing out the good in what they do, play devil’s advocate as it were. Because whether we like it or not, evil motives are often built upon decent goals.
But as this film demonstrates, as Hitler shows his destine for anyone, even his own people, who will not give their lives for HIS vision of Germany, his Third Reich was being eaten away by a cancer of his own making, a Germany rotting from the very top.
Downfall is without a doubt one of the best World War 2 films which I have ever seen, delivering a compelling and immersive look behind the scenes of one of the most important defeats in modern history.
But being British and having to follow this with subtitles, which was great as watching this in its native German only adds to the experience, it can be a bit difficult to keep up with every plot machination, as we spend two and half hours reading about troop deployments, tactics and the philosophy of the Third Reich as we are presented with such atmospheric work, but if you can keep up with but the text and visuals, this is one hell of an education for those who do not know and an immersive masterpiece for those who follow WW2 history.
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
Mar 13, 2019
Masterful visuals, including many practical effects wonders (1 more)
Extraordinary score by Hans Zimmer
Relationships bud in the film, but feel forced (1 more)
A few plot-holes, albeit none thoroughly distracting
Contains spoilers, click to show
With two of the most scathing reviews I’ve written under my belt, I figured it was time to write about my favorite movie of all time, Christopher Nolan’s “Inception.”
“Inception” revolves around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a spy who uses military-grade technology and shared dreams to extract information from his marks. He and his team are unwittingly tested by their latest target, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) for recruitment into a different kind of job: Inception, a type of job using the same skills and technology to implant an idea. In particular, Saito calls on Cobb to plant an idea on his business competitor, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In spite of his reluctancy about this type of job, Saito’s offer to clear Cobb of a murder charge sways Cobb in favor of taking the job.
Cobb gathers new help, including Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect he finds capable of creating complex labyrinths. With the help of a deep sedative, the team is able to make Fischer have dreams within dreams within dreams, a method that makes the mark more receptive to the implanted idea. It comes with a cost, though: The dreams become more unstable as they continue going deeper into the dream world, and the sedative itself creates the risk of actual death within the dream.
First of all, let’s talk cast. Already, we’ve got four top-grade talents named, but we also have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb’s point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, a forger, and additional roles filled by Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. Nolan did not lack for talent in this one, and by gosh it shows.
Visually, “Inception” excels most with making the impossible as real as cinema can make it. Throughout the film, characters are able to manipulate the rules of the dream world, making for moments where fruit explodes, cities bend, and stairwells become endless. Beyond portraying the impossible, though, the film has to show the real world, too. In those scenes, an aesthetic that can’t exactly be placed takes over. The technology has a slightly retro-futuristic feel to it, while the fashion and settings rely on classic tastes. Even Hans Zimmer’s score, which samples from the work of vocalist Edith Piaf, contributes to the chronological ambiguity of the movie. By not being able to place the film’s setting in any particular year or even decade, it seems prepackaged to become a classic film.
Speaking of Zimmer, he’s is at his best with this score. The complexity of the film reflects in a layered score, and listening to it on its own is its own sort of treat. It’s one of those symphonic recordings that the listener will pick out something they never noticed before every time.
But even above the stellar cast and visuals that have inspired reality-bending sequences in films since, this film’s biggest success is its use of approachable themes and concepts to tell a story within a story. Nearly a decade after its initial release, fans have widely circulated the idea that “Inception” is a film about storytelling. Concepts as basic as nesting stories within stories play out many ways across the plot. It also plays with common experiences in dreams, turning experiences like the feeling of falling into tools for Cobb’s team to exploit. Essentially, if you can dream, you already have a primer in this film’s core principles.
It’s not without flaws, as no film is. Certain moments fail to hold up upon closer inspection. For instance, the relationship between Ariadne and Arthur comes across forced. Those moments aside, from its foreshadowing opening to its meaningfully open-ended ending, “Inception” is an absolute marvel.
“Inception” revolves around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a spy who uses military-grade technology and shared dreams to extract information from his marks. He and his team are unwittingly tested by their latest target, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) for recruitment into a different kind of job: Inception, a type of job using the same skills and technology to implant an idea. In particular, Saito calls on Cobb to plant an idea on his business competitor, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In spite of his reluctancy about this type of job, Saito’s offer to clear Cobb of a murder charge sways Cobb in favor of taking the job.
Cobb gathers new help, including Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect he finds capable of creating complex labyrinths. With the help of a deep sedative, the team is able to make Fischer have dreams within dreams within dreams, a method that makes the mark more receptive to the implanted idea. It comes with a cost, though: The dreams become more unstable as they continue going deeper into the dream world, and the sedative itself creates the risk of actual death within the dream.
First of all, let’s talk cast. Already, we’ve got four top-grade talents named, but we also have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb’s point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, a forger, and additional roles filled by Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. Nolan did not lack for talent in this one, and by gosh it shows.
Visually, “Inception” excels most with making the impossible as real as cinema can make it. Throughout the film, characters are able to manipulate the rules of the dream world, making for moments where fruit explodes, cities bend, and stairwells become endless. Beyond portraying the impossible, though, the film has to show the real world, too. In those scenes, an aesthetic that can’t exactly be placed takes over. The technology has a slightly retro-futuristic feel to it, while the fashion and settings rely on classic tastes. Even Hans Zimmer’s score, which samples from the work of vocalist Edith Piaf, contributes to the chronological ambiguity of the movie. By not being able to place the film’s setting in any particular year or even decade, it seems prepackaged to become a classic film.
Speaking of Zimmer, he’s is at his best with this score. The complexity of the film reflects in a layered score, and listening to it on its own is its own sort of treat. It’s one of those symphonic recordings that the listener will pick out something they never noticed before every time.
But even above the stellar cast and visuals that have inspired reality-bending sequences in films since, this film’s biggest success is its use of approachable themes and concepts to tell a story within a story. Nearly a decade after its initial release, fans have widely circulated the idea that “Inception” is a film about storytelling. Concepts as basic as nesting stories within stories play out many ways across the plot. It also plays with common experiences in dreams, turning experiences like the feeling of falling into tools for Cobb’s team to exploit. Essentially, if you can dream, you already have a primer in this film’s core principles.
It’s not without flaws, as no film is. Certain moments fail to hold up upon closer inspection. For instance, the relationship between Ariadne and Arthur comes across forced. Those moments aside, from its foreshadowing opening to its meaningfully open-ended ending, “Inception” is an absolute marvel.