Search
Michael Foot: A Life
Book
The authorised - but not uncritical - life of one of the great parliamentarians and orators of our...
Trends in Dermatoglyphic Research
Norris M. Durham and C.C. Plato
Book
The preparation of a volume of worldwide research contributions can be a time- consuming task which...
David McK (3245 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Sep 12, 2021
One of the earliest movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), - I think it's the 4th - way back in Phase 1, with what was seemingly an odd choice of director in our very own (I'm from Northern Ireland, as he is) Kenneth Branagh.
However, you can soon see why he was chosen, with this film - in particular - having a very Shakespearian feel to it, what with the whole plot of two brothers to the throne (as an aside, also the first film to leave Earth for large portions) and the whole familial drama going on ...
I also remember, prior to this, that my whole recollection of the character came from the old 70s/80s 'The Incredible Hulk' tv show and mini movies, where Thor was more-or-less somewhat similar to Jekyll and Hyde, in that he shared a body with the lead character ('who-so-ever be so worthy') of the crippled doctor Donald Blake - a name dropped in this movie as an Easter egg, as Jane Foster's ex boyfriend, and - temporarily - borrowed by this version of Thor.
Unlike many of the later MCU movies, this has a surprisingly small finale, and the scene with Thor breaking into the SHIELD camp in his attempt to recover Mjolnir is still the best bit of the whole thing.
However, you can soon see why he was chosen, with this film - in particular - having a very Shakespearian feel to it, what with the whole plot of two brothers to the throne (as an aside, also the first film to leave Earth for large portions) and the whole familial drama going on ...
I also remember, prior to this, that my whole recollection of the character came from the old 70s/80s 'The Incredible Hulk' tv show and mini movies, where Thor was more-or-less somewhat similar to Jekyll and Hyde, in that he shared a body with the lead character ('who-so-ever be so worthy') of the crippled doctor Donald Blake - a name dropped in this movie as an Easter egg, as Jane Foster's ex boyfriend, and - temporarily - borrowed by this version of Thor.
Unlike many of the later MCU movies, this has a surprisingly small finale, and the scene with Thor breaking into the SHIELD camp in his attempt to recover Mjolnir is still the best bit of the whole thing.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Haunting in Venice (2023) in Movies
Sep 30, 2023
Well Crafted
Famed Agatha Christie Belgian Sleuth Hercule Poirot is a familiar figure on the screen - both large and small. He has been played numerous times by numerous performers, each one riffing on the famed mustached Detective and his “little grey cells” and and any performer who takes on this character must bear the weight of those who played the role before him.
In A HAUNTING IN VENICE, Kenneth Branagh’s 3rd go around as Poirot, Branagh has finally shaken off the Ghosts of Poirot’s Past and has made the part his own.
Based on the 1969 novel by Agatha Christie, HALLOWE’EN PARTY, Branagh (who also directed the film) imbues horror elements and the macabre to the whoddunit detective genre - largely to positive results.
As stated above, Branagh has finally made this version of Hercule Poirot his own, giving the detective (who, at the beginning of this film/novel, is in self-imposed retirement) some self-doubt and self-retrospection which helps drive the story, plot and intrigue of the story.
Branagh has populated this murder-mystery with strong performers from recent Oscar-winner Michelle Yeoh (EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, ALL AT ONCE) to Jamie Dornan (Branagh’s BELFAST) to YELLOWSTONE’s Kelly Reilly. Each brings mystery and star power to their roles.
Special notice needs to be made of Comedienne Tina Fey who is tackling her first non-comedic role and largely sticks the landing. As a friend of the Detective from NYC, Fey more than holds her own in the many, many scenes she shares with Branagh. As is often the case with comediennes, there is more to be mined in Fey’s acting chops and here’s hoping she dives deeper into more serious roles.
Director Branagh smartly uses the setting and mood of this piece to craft a film experience that is eerie, spooky and claustrophobic. While it is being billed as a HORROR film, it is not. It is a tense, taught, macabre film, filled with fish-eye lens and blurred-focus shots, which makes the set design and cinematography complimentary to the story.
Which is important for this is, in the end, a drawing room murder-mystery and the audience’s enjoyment of this film will be in direct alignment with how the mystery plays out…and this mystery plays out well (enough). What it lacks in surprises, it more than makes up for in mood, atmosphere and character
And that makes for a very entertaining time at the Cinema.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
In A HAUNTING IN VENICE, Kenneth Branagh’s 3rd go around as Poirot, Branagh has finally shaken off the Ghosts of Poirot’s Past and has made the part his own.
Based on the 1969 novel by Agatha Christie, HALLOWE’EN PARTY, Branagh (who also directed the film) imbues horror elements and the macabre to the whoddunit detective genre - largely to positive results.
As stated above, Branagh has finally made this version of Hercule Poirot his own, giving the detective (who, at the beginning of this film/novel, is in self-imposed retirement) some self-doubt and self-retrospection which helps drive the story, plot and intrigue of the story.
Branagh has populated this murder-mystery with strong performers from recent Oscar-winner Michelle Yeoh (EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, ALL AT ONCE) to Jamie Dornan (Branagh’s BELFAST) to YELLOWSTONE’s Kelly Reilly. Each brings mystery and star power to their roles.
Special notice needs to be made of Comedienne Tina Fey who is tackling her first non-comedic role and largely sticks the landing. As a friend of the Detective from NYC, Fey more than holds her own in the many, many scenes she shares with Branagh. As is often the case with comediennes, there is more to be mined in Fey’s acting chops and here’s hoping she dives deeper into more serious roles.
Director Branagh smartly uses the setting and mood of this piece to craft a film experience that is eerie, spooky and claustrophobic. While it is being billed as a HORROR film, it is not. It is a tense, taught, macabre film, filled with fish-eye lens and blurred-focus shots, which makes the set design and cinematography complimentary to the story.
Which is important for this is, in the end, a drawing room murder-mystery and the audience’s enjoyment of this film will be in direct alignment with how the mystery plays out…and this mystery plays out well (enough). What it lacks in surprises, it more than makes up for in mood, atmosphere and character
And that makes for a very entertaining time at the Cinema.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
Solid performances (1 more)
Beautifully shot
An average movie with some great performances
Kenneth Brannagh steals the show on Murder on the Orient Express, which is all the more remarkable when you consider he's pulling double duty here being the star and the director. His rendition of the greatest detective of all time, Poirot, is note perfect and almost always performed with a degre of a nuance that keeps him feeling like a real and grounded individual. He's backed up by a strong supporting cast that all do their best with limited screen time to bring something special to a script that doesn't always give them the most to work with.
It's the script here that I feel is the largest problem. Being a murder mystery, it's integral that all the pieces slot together so that by the time the killer reveal comes along- it feels earned. It's here where the movie really stumbles. Being an adaptation, it doesn't have much wriggle room when it comes to who the killer is, but when the movie draws to a close and we learn who's responsible, it comes across as a quite a weak resolution. The story hadn't built up to a point where it all feels real and instead it comes across as a random resolution that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Still though, its an enjoyable watch. I would however be interested to hear what others who are already familiar with the story feel about it.
It's the script here that I feel is the largest problem. Being a murder mystery, it's integral that all the pieces slot together so that by the time the killer reveal comes along- it feels earned. It's here where the movie really stumbles. Being an adaptation, it doesn't have much wriggle room when it comes to who the killer is, but when the movie draws to a close and we learn who's responsible, it comes across as a quite a weak resolution. The story hadn't built up to a point where it all feels real and instead it comes across as a random resolution that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Still though, its an enjoyable watch. I would however be interested to hear what others who are already familiar with the story feel about it.
Mark Halpern (153 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Jan 26, 2018
Exceptional remake
Based on the famous book written by Agatha Christie Novel Murder On The Orient Express. The story of thirteen different strangers and one famous Detective are on one of the most luxurious trains in the eastern hemisphere. One man gets murdered and it is up to famous detective Hercule Poirot to solve the case. The train passengers contain a mixture of classes from a Princess, to countess, a Doctor, a Dancer, The valet, The professor, the gold digger a antiquities dealer and a nurse, a governess, a Count, the Italian fan and the Conductor. They are the suspects in this cold blooded murder. During the murder the an avalanche knocks the train off the tracks and during this is when the body is discovered. It is this stoppage of time that allows our Hero to question the suspects and try to make sense of all the evidence what ever there maybe.
I can't divulge more because there are so many different plot points that it would ruin the chance for you to see the movie and enjoy it.
The Book can never be beat, The first movie was ok but, the remake was fantastic. Stars Melanie Griffith, Judi Dench, William Dafoe, Daisy Ridley, Johnny Deep, Josh Gad, Penople Cruz and Kenneth Branagh. This is an excellent cast for this movie and it is amazing. I do suggest you read the book first but, that is just a suggestion
I can't divulge more because there are so many different plot points that it would ruin the chance for you to see the movie and enjoy it.
The Book can never be beat, The first movie was ok but, the remake was fantastic. Stars Melanie Griffith, Judi Dench, William Dafoe, Daisy Ridley, Johnny Deep, Josh Gad, Penople Cruz and Kenneth Branagh. This is an excellent cast for this movie and it is amazing. I do suggest you read the book first but, that is just a suggestion
Lindsay (1706 KP) rated The Nutcracker Conspiracy in Books
Jan 25, 2020
Are you a fan of Murphy and Jessica? Then do not look much further than that of Lauren Carr. The Thorny Rose Mystery is picked up once again. We find that Murphy and Jessica are in the thick of things once again in “The Nutcracker Conspiracy”.
The plot seems to be interconnected a bit. Is it just that or is it two different things but involvement. This book seems too real like it really as if I am in real-world experience in my time. There seem to be Jessica who seems to in the middle of defending her friend Amy and her friend Kenneth. When her house is blown up and her husband is killed? Is it Amy that plotted it or is it someone else?
Murphy seems to be trying to find out who killed not one person but several different people. I seem to like this what my real-life government might be doing in a fictional tale. I hope not. But the plot seems to involve more than just the murder but also doing something called a spy ring?
What is the PEAA group? Will Murphy and Jessica come out of this okay and survive? This book has it all. It got surprises and twists and turns from beginning to end. We even get Chris Matheson involved to a point. What is going on? What happens with the President's assassination attempt?
The plot seems to be interconnected a bit. Is it just that or is it two different things but involvement. This book seems too real like it really as if I am in real-world experience in my time. There seem to be Jessica who seems to in the middle of defending her friend Amy and her friend Kenneth. When her house is blown up and her husband is killed? Is it Amy that plotted it or is it someone else?
Murphy seems to be trying to find out who killed not one person but several different people. I seem to like this what my real-life government might be doing in a fictional tale. I hope not. But the plot seems to involve more than just the murder but also doing something called a spy ring?
What is the PEAA group? Will Murphy and Jessica come out of this okay and survive? This book has it all. It got surprises and twists and turns from beginning to end. We even get Chris Matheson involved to a point. What is going on? What happens with the President's assassination attempt?
Welcome to Just a Minute!: A Celebration of Britain's Best-Loved Radio Comedy
Sue Perkins, Graham Norton, Nicholas Parsons and Gyles Brandreth
Book
Includes contributions from Graham Norton, Sue Perkins, Jenny Eclair and Gyles Brandreth. As its...
M
Magnificence
Book
I loathe us, I loathe our stupid puerile view of the world ...That we have only to do it, that we...