Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) created a post in Pets!
Oct 14, 2018
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Reckless Bride (Black Cobra Quartet #4) in Books
Dec 21, 2018
This is the fourth and final book in Laurens' Black Cobra Quartet - it was one where I was desperate to find out how it was all going to end and at the same time didn't want it to be over.
There have been some errors in the books that could have been picked up - most obviously in this the herione is refered to as Lucy in the blurb and so as I started reading I did wonder who this Loretta person was! Also in the last book I think Linsdale should have been Linslade - only because I live near there! Be that as it may, I'm not the sort to let a few little things like that spoil my enjoyment of a cracking good story!
The scope of this quartet has been much wider that your usual book of this genre as the four couriers have travelled back from India to England, and to some extent we have followed them in their travels. In trying to fend off cultists and other attackers, we've also had rather more of a swashbuckling adventure than is perhaps the norm - but I loved every minute of it!
There is a twist in the tale of this Black Cobra. It's so clever and so simple I could have kicked myself for not seeing it coming!
If you're new to Laurens you really need to start with the Cynsters and The Bastion club books before this - but I guarantee you won't regret it!
There have been some errors in the books that could have been picked up - most obviously in this the herione is refered to as Lucy in the blurb and so as I started reading I did wonder who this Loretta person was! Also in the last book I think Linsdale should have been Linslade - only because I live near there! Be that as it may, I'm not the sort to let a few little things like that spoil my enjoyment of a cracking good story!
The scope of this quartet has been much wider that your usual book of this genre as the four couriers have travelled back from India to England, and to some extent we have followed them in their travels. In trying to fend off cultists and other attackers, we've also had rather more of a swashbuckling adventure than is perhaps the norm - but I loved every minute of it!
There is a twist in the tale of this Black Cobra. It's so clever and so simple I could have kicked myself for not seeing it coming!
If you're new to Laurens you really need to start with the Cynsters and The Bastion club books before this - but I guarantee you won't regret it!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lucy in the Sky (2019) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Natalie Portman and Jon Hamm together (1 more)
Interesting premise
Mind. Blown - A thoughtful film that's hard to like.
Natalie Portman plays the eponymous Lucy Cola, a NASA astronaut who has achieved her ambition of reaching space and experienced the enormity of the universe first hand. Her mind is officially blown. Such that, on returning to earth, nothing seems ‘enough’ any more. Her family; her comfortable home; her life.
She becomes desperate to be selected for the next program… to get that literal) ‘high’ all over again. So desperate that her mind and morals burn up on trying to re-enter.
You look at the career choices of Natalie Portman, and they have often revolved around cool and detached woman: “Black Swan” and “Jackie” for example. Here, looking incredibly fit and strong (as you would expect from an astronaut at the peak of her powers) , she again plays something of an ice queen. She is – of course – brilliant at it.
Starring with her here is the ever-watchable Jon Hamm as fellow astronaut Mark Goodwin, the omni-present – at the moment – Zazie Beetz as a fellow program competitor and Dan Stevens (from “Downton”) as her exasperated colleague and husband Drew. (Stevens was COMPLETELY UNRECOGNISABLE to me in this movie…. just like in “Beauty and the Beast“! To the extent that I had to wind back the film from the end-titles after seeing his name to check!).
This was always a film that was going to struggle to identify its audience. Yes, it starts in space, but it is in NO WAY a “Sci-Fi” movie (which is one of its tags on IMDB. Shameful!). This is a drama about a woman progressively losing her grip on reality: almost a PTSD movie, but without the “S” being “T” in the normal sense of things.
Lucy’s ‘other-worldliness’ is reflected in the aspect ratio of the movie, which varies from a claustrophobic ‘old-TV’ format 4:3 ratio to a ratio bordering on ‘Cinemascope’. (This makes for a very challenging watch on a small airline TV screen, as I was doing!). It’s a motif that’s obviously meant to reflect Lucy’s drifting grip on reality. But it eventually gets irritating…. I had the sense that first-time feature director Noah Hawley was ‘trying too hard’ for something quirky and different.
Far more successful is a ‘green-screened’ trippy sequence seeing Lucy being transported to a hospital bedside to the rendition of The Beatles iconic song, performed by Lucy Hannigan (listen here). It’s dreamlike and unsettling. In fact, one of the high-spots of the movie for me was Jeff Russo‘s score, which I have made a mental note to make sure to listen to again on Spotify. It’s more electronica than orchestral but matches the mood of the film really well.
But, here’s the thing. I didn’t enjoy it. The problem is (and no spoilers here) that Portman’s Lucy is such a downright BITCH that it is impossible to warm to her as the movie’s star. There is, in fact, only one of the characters that you really side with, and she’s the one doing the most damage to them.
This shouldn’t be a problem to the story, since the film is reflecting (loosely) true events: the astronauts in question were Lisa Nowak and William Oefelein. And there are lots of ‘feel-bad’ films about mental illness (“One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, for example) that stand on their own merits. But this one just seemed to be a fairly miserable and destructive story that didn’t have enough of a payoff – either positive or negative – to merit the journey.
This was disappointing, since after hearing the premise, I’d been looking forward to this one.
For those who love movies, and the way movies are structured, it is an interesting watch. But it is not by any stretch an entertaining mainstream movie. The director Noah Hawley will need to do better in the “commercially-appealing” stakes for his next film: since he’s been (rather surprisingly) given the helm for the sequel to “Star Trek: Beyond“.
(For the full graphical review, check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/09/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-lucy-in-the-sky-2019/ ).
She becomes desperate to be selected for the next program… to get that literal) ‘high’ all over again. So desperate that her mind and morals burn up on trying to re-enter.
You look at the career choices of Natalie Portman, and they have often revolved around cool and detached woman: “Black Swan” and “Jackie” for example. Here, looking incredibly fit and strong (as you would expect from an astronaut at the peak of her powers) , she again plays something of an ice queen. She is – of course – brilliant at it.
Starring with her here is the ever-watchable Jon Hamm as fellow astronaut Mark Goodwin, the omni-present – at the moment – Zazie Beetz as a fellow program competitor and Dan Stevens (from “Downton”) as her exasperated colleague and husband Drew. (Stevens was COMPLETELY UNRECOGNISABLE to me in this movie…. just like in “Beauty and the Beast“! To the extent that I had to wind back the film from the end-titles after seeing his name to check!).
This was always a film that was going to struggle to identify its audience. Yes, it starts in space, but it is in NO WAY a “Sci-Fi” movie (which is one of its tags on IMDB. Shameful!). This is a drama about a woman progressively losing her grip on reality: almost a PTSD movie, but without the “S” being “T” in the normal sense of things.
Lucy’s ‘other-worldliness’ is reflected in the aspect ratio of the movie, which varies from a claustrophobic ‘old-TV’ format 4:3 ratio to a ratio bordering on ‘Cinemascope’. (This makes for a very challenging watch on a small airline TV screen, as I was doing!). It’s a motif that’s obviously meant to reflect Lucy’s drifting grip on reality. But it eventually gets irritating…. I had the sense that first-time feature director Noah Hawley was ‘trying too hard’ for something quirky and different.
Far more successful is a ‘green-screened’ trippy sequence seeing Lucy being transported to a hospital bedside to the rendition of The Beatles iconic song, performed by Lucy Hannigan (listen here). It’s dreamlike and unsettling. In fact, one of the high-spots of the movie for me was Jeff Russo‘s score, which I have made a mental note to make sure to listen to again on Spotify. It’s more electronica than orchestral but matches the mood of the film really well.
But, here’s the thing. I didn’t enjoy it. The problem is (and no spoilers here) that Portman’s Lucy is such a downright BITCH that it is impossible to warm to her as the movie’s star. There is, in fact, only one of the characters that you really side with, and she’s the one doing the most damage to them.
This shouldn’t be a problem to the story, since the film is reflecting (loosely) true events: the astronauts in question were Lisa Nowak and William Oefelein. And there are lots of ‘feel-bad’ films about mental illness (“One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, for example) that stand on their own merits. But this one just seemed to be a fairly miserable and destructive story that didn’t have enough of a payoff – either positive or negative – to merit the journey.
This was disappointing, since after hearing the premise, I’d been looking forward to this one.
For those who love movies, and the way movies are structured, it is an interesting watch. But it is not by any stretch an entertaining mainstream movie. The director Noah Hawley will need to do better in the “commercially-appealing” stakes for his next film: since he’s been (rather surprisingly) given the helm for the sequel to “Star Trek: Beyond“.
(For the full graphical review, check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/09/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-lucy-in-the-sky-2019/ ).
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated Fallen (Fallen, #1) in Books
Dec 12, 2018
This bestselling genre-crossing book has a captivating start and end, and I’m already looking forward to reading the next in the series!
The gist of the book is given away on its cover, so there’s no element of surprise here. It’s a love story between a human girl and an angel.
Although it clearly lies under the paranormal genre, the book is predominantly a romance, and the characters, even though they’ve been alive centuries, are presented as come-of-age teenagers, placing the book under the young adult genre also. It also comes under the urban fantasy genre, with its edgy beginnings at a reform school.
The prologue is enchanting with its snippet of the angel’s love for the girl in her previous life. The rest of the story is written from the viewpoint of the girl, Luce. Lucy would be your typical, if a little nervous, American girl, if it weren’t for her visions of black shadows that seem to appear only to her. With no reasonable explanation for the shadows, she was put on anti-psychotic medication.
Her story begins when she’s placed at a reform school, following the death of a friend that for some reason she has little recollection of, and (perhaps therefore) blames herself for. As you can imagine, the reform school has some lively, dramatic and intriguing characters! A love triangle is sparked on her first day. There’s the somehow familiar Daniel, who smiles, then flips her the bird, and the charming charismatic Cam, who can’t wait to spend time with her.
Luce finds herself drawn to Daniel, but he keeps giving her the brush off. Cam meanwhile takes a special interest in Luce. Once Luce has her “first” kiss with Daniel, she decides to meet Cam to apologise for leading him on. However, she ends up kissing Cam and the black shadows come after them. Daniel’s identity as a fallen angel is revealed to Luce and a battle (rather than their previous fist fight) begins. Luce flees for safety, only to find herself in further danger!
The obvious comparison here is with Stephanie Meyers Twilight Saga, which has a similar love triangle, but with a vampire and werewolf rather than fallen angels. Lauren Kate’s writing is not as good as Stephanie Meyers’, but is just as good as some of the other YA paranormal authors such as L J Smith, and Cassandra Clare. Although the romance is the central feature of the book, there are no erotic scenes.
I watched the film before reading the book, and found the film quite forgettable - but the book had me hooked! My interest in the next book in the series isn’t so much for the romance between Luce and Daniel, but for the inclusion of the other characters and the clear impression that there’s a lot more to the story than what’s been discovered so far!
The gist of the book is given away on its cover, so there’s no element of surprise here. It’s a love story between a human girl and an angel.
Although it clearly lies under the paranormal genre, the book is predominantly a romance, and the characters, even though they’ve been alive centuries, are presented as come-of-age teenagers, placing the book under the young adult genre also. It also comes under the urban fantasy genre, with its edgy beginnings at a reform school.
The prologue is enchanting with its snippet of the angel’s love for the girl in her previous life. The rest of the story is written from the viewpoint of the girl, Luce. Lucy would be your typical, if a little nervous, American girl, if it weren’t for her visions of black shadows that seem to appear only to her. With no reasonable explanation for the shadows, she was put on anti-psychotic medication.
Her story begins when she’s placed at a reform school, following the death of a friend that for some reason she has little recollection of, and (perhaps therefore) blames herself for. As you can imagine, the reform school has some lively, dramatic and intriguing characters! A love triangle is sparked on her first day. There’s the somehow familiar Daniel, who smiles, then flips her the bird, and the charming charismatic Cam, who can’t wait to spend time with her.
Luce finds herself drawn to Daniel, but he keeps giving her the brush off. Cam meanwhile takes a special interest in Luce. Once Luce has her “first” kiss with Daniel, she decides to meet Cam to apologise for leading him on. However, she ends up kissing Cam and the black shadows come after them. Daniel’s identity as a fallen angel is revealed to Luce and a battle (rather than their previous fist fight) begins. Luce flees for safety, only to find herself in further danger!
The obvious comparison here is with Stephanie Meyers Twilight Saga, which has a similar love triangle, but with a vampire and werewolf rather than fallen angels. Lauren Kate’s writing is not as good as Stephanie Meyers’, but is just as good as some of the other YA paranormal authors such as L J Smith, and Cassandra Clare. Although the romance is the central feature of the book, there are no erotic scenes.
I watched the film before reading the book, and found the film quite forgettable - but the book had me hooked! My interest in the next book in the series isn’t so much for the romance between Luce and Daniel, but for the inclusion of the other characters and the clear impression that there’s a lot more to the story than what’s been discovered so far!
Deborah (162 KP) rated Murder at Mansfield Park (Charles Maddox #1) in Books
Dec 21, 2018
The Austen sequel or entertainment is an not uncommon beast these days, even if Pride & Prejudice is more usually the chosen book. As the title might give you a clue - this one relates more to Mansfield Park.
The major characters from the Austen novel are all there in name, but characters and relationships have been seriously altered. The first third of the book is mainly made up of recycled dialogue and narrative from Mansfield Park, but not necesarily in the same order. Mr Rushworth's character is changed to be more like Henry Crawford (and he is given the 'black and plain' description belonging to him in the novel) crossed with Robert Ferrars, so it seems odd when he is given dialogue beloning to the Mr Rushworth of the original novel, although not perhaps as strange when Mrs Norris is found spouting his lines.....
Fanny Price moves to become a rich heiress and the eldest of the female cousins; her character is more like the Maria of the book crossed with Lucy Steele and Caroline Bingley! Maria becomes more like the Julia of the book and Julia becomes more like the Fanny of the novel crossed with Marianne Dashwood - got that yet?! Henry Crawford here I don't really know - I'm not sure we got a proper description, so he does seem a bit of a cipher.
It's not a bad book, but with the murders I found it all rather unpleasant - I prefer such things to be more about the solving of the mystery than the incident itself, and here we have so few characters who could have committed the crime I didn't feel like I was waiting with baited breath for the conclusion (it's not Pug, in case you were worried.....). some characters were so underdeveloped it was rather obvious that they wouldn't have been involved. I do feel that having made so many changes, Lynn Shepherd would have been better off writing her own, original novel; one can't help but feel she has used Austen just to sell her book whereas her original dialogue does suggest that she could allow her writing to stand on its own merits.
The major characters from the Austen novel are all there in name, but characters and relationships have been seriously altered. The first third of the book is mainly made up of recycled dialogue and narrative from Mansfield Park, but not necesarily in the same order. Mr Rushworth's character is changed to be more like Henry Crawford (and he is given the 'black and plain' description belonging to him in the novel) crossed with Robert Ferrars, so it seems odd when he is given dialogue beloning to the Mr Rushworth of the original novel, although not perhaps as strange when Mrs Norris is found spouting his lines.....
Fanny Price moves to become a rich heiress and the eldest of the female cousins; her character is more like the Maria of the book crossed with Lucy Steele and Caroline Bingley! Maria becomes more like the Julia of the book and Julia becomes more like the Fanny of the novel crossed with Marianne Dashwood - got that yet?! Henry Crawford here I don't really know - I'm not sure we got a proper description, so he does seem a bit of a cipher.
It's not a bad book, but with the murders I found it all rather unpleasant - I prefer such things to be more about the solving of the mystery than the incident itself, and here we have so few characters who could have committed the crime I didn't feel like I was waiting with baited breath for the conclusion (it's not Pug, in case you were worried.....). some characters were so underdeveloped it was rather obvious that they wouldn't have been involved. I do feel that having made so many changes, Lynn Shepherd would have been better off writing her own, original novel; one can't help but feel she has used Austen just to sell her book whereas her original dialogue does suggest that she could allow her writing to stand on its own merits.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The new Dreamworks Animation release Kung Fu Panda 3 has several big name actors voicing the characters. Among them are Jack Black as Po, Angelina Jolie as Tigress, Kate Hudson as Mei Mei, Bryan Cranston as Li, Dustin Hoffman as Shifu, Jackie Chan as Monkey,
Seth Rogan as Mantis and Lucy Liu as Viper.
Po discovers a long-lost relative who travels with him to a secret enclave of Panda relatives. Meanwhile, the trapped super-villain Kai escapes, and begins to defeat all the king-fu masters across the land.
Po must gather his new-found relatives and his long-time friends, and tries to train them to work together to defeat Kai.
What results is a heartwarming tale of friends & family working together to beat the odds, and of discovering that your strengths and abilities can be used in situations that might seem otherwise hopeless. It shows you that no matter what your capabilities are as an individual, working together can achieve great things.
The music throughout the film was engaging, and the graphics and animation were superb. This is one movie that is released in 3-D that is actually worth seeing in 3-D!
I had the 3 kids with me and they all loved it. The youngest, a girl, is 6, and her comment was ‘That movie was AWESOME!’, and her favorite part was ‘all the cool fighting scenes’
The oldest, a 9 year old boy, said ‘it was a GREAT movie!’, and his favorite part was when Po discovered his dad again.
The middle child, 7, a boy says ‘I thought it was so great that I wanted to cry’, and his favorite part was the baby pandas doing their tricks to help defeat Kai.
From an adult perspective I thought it was a great family film, with a message of acceptance and working together despite our differences in order to accomplish a common goal. I loved how Po’s adopted father and natural father worked together and got along and that they all ended up as ‘family’, without sides being chosen. I felt that was a really great message in this day & age.
I would give this movie a solid 4.5 out of 5 stars, and recommend it for any family looking for a fun activity to head out to on the weekend.
Seth Rogan as Mantis and Lucy Liu as Viper.
Po discovers a long-lost relative who travels with him to a secret enclave of Panda relatives. Meanwhile, the trapped super-villain Kai escapes, and begins to defeat all the king-fu masters across the land.
Po must gather his new-found relatives and his long-time friends, and tries to train them to work together to defeat Kai.
What results is a heartwarming tale of friends & family working together to beat the odds, and of discovering that your strengths and abilities can be used in situations that might seem otherwise hopeless. It shows you that no matter what your capabilities are as an individual, working together can achieve great things.
The music throughout the film was engaging, and the graphics and animation were superb. This is one movie that is released in 3-D that is actually worth seeing in 3-D!
I had the 3 kids with me and they all loved it. The youngest, a girl, is 6, and her comment was ‘That movie was AWESOME!’, and her favorite part was ‘all the cool fighting scenes’
The oldest, a 9 year old boy, said ‘it was a GREAT movie!’, and his favorite part was when Po discovered his dad again.
The middle child, 7, a boy says ‘I thought it was so great that I wanted to cry’, and his favorite part was the baby pandas doing their tricks to help defeat Kai.
From an adult perspective I thought it was a great family film, with a message of acceptance and working together despite our differences in order to accomplish a common goal. I loved how Po’s adopted father and natural father worked together and got along and that they all ended up as ‘family’, without sides being chosen. I felt that was a really great message in this day & age.
I would give this movie a solid 4.5 out of 5 stars, and recommend it for any family looking for a fun activity to head out to on the weekend.
Holly Johnson recommended Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by The Beatles in Music (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Ghost in the Shell is a film adaptation of a 1989 manga and subsequent 1995 anime. Set in the “not so distant future,” Scarlet Johansson plays as Major, the first functioning human brain/consciousness saved from an accident and placed into a full cybernetic body. Effectively, she is the perfect soldier and member of the Section 9 special task-force devoted to counter-terrorism operations.
As an adaptation, fans of the franchise will be pleased to know that Ghost in the shell nails the aesthetic and tone of the source material to provide a stunning, “lived in” future world. The special effects are excellent and really shine to bring this film to life and help us understand the world these characters inhabit.
The characters themselves, while “cool,” lack any real depth. It is not that Scarlet Johansson does an excellent job at being pensive and fits the role fine. It is just that there is no real human quality to her for us to attach to. Instead, everything she does feel “robotic.” Similar to her performance in Lucy with a little bit of Black Widow from the marvel universe crossed in.
Yes, I know she is supposed to be a cyborg. But the film wants us to believe she has actual interest in finding out who she was before the “accident,” but she shows very little human emotion to get us there. Furthermore, if she was the first human mind saved and put into a cyborg body, why doesn’t she show more human emotion when she starts to uncover her past. Meanwhile, her partner, Batou (Pilou Asbaek) showcases just slightly more emotion because he likes to feed stray dogs, however in his case, we at least understand that he is a loyal solder and friend to Major, and thus understand why he is along for the ride.
Additionally (or perhaps as a result) the story suffers from some pacing issues as the film doesn’t always provide clear or strong markers to help the viewer understand what exactly is motivating the characters throughout the film. Rather the film often holds a bit too long on sequences in an attempt to showcase the beautiful world and let the view ponder their own meaning of what they are watching.
This becomes problematic as the characters never really become likeable or establish any depth beyond the paint by numbers plot. Human becomes Cyborg, Cyborg works for a corporation/government, Cyborg figures out they have been lied to, revenge ensues.
In the end, I found myself checking my watch more than I had hoped as the film felt long and tired. If it wasn’t for the stunning world created on screen I would have been completely bored. It’s a shame because I really wanted to like this film. I cannot help but think that if this film had come out in 1999, it would have been amazing!
But in 2017 it feels average at best. Still, Ghost in the Shell is an adequate adaptation that fans of the franchise will enjoy. However I feel this adaptation does not help elevate the franchise beyond what the 1995 Anime has already accomplished.
As an adaptation, fans of the franchise will be pleased to know that Ghost in the shell nails the aesthetic and tone of the source material to provide a stunning, “lived in” future world. The special effects are excellent and really shine to bring this film to life and help us understand the world these characters inhabit.
The characters themselves, while “cool,” lack any real depth. It is not that Scarlet Johansson does an excellent job at being pensive and fits the role fine. It is just that there is no real human quality to her for us to attach to. Instead, everything she does feel “robotic.” Similar to her performance in Lucy with a little bit of Black Widow from the marvel universe crossed in.
Yes, I know she is supposed to be a cyborg. But the film wants us to believe she has actual interest in finding out who she was before the “accident,” but she shows very little human emotion to get us there. Furthermore, if she was the first human mind saved and put into a cyborg body, why doesn’t she show more human emotion when she starts to uncover her past. Meanwhile, her partner, Batou (Pilou Asbaek) showcases just slightly more emotion because he likes to feed stray dogs, however in his case, we at least understand that he is a loyal solder and friend to Major, and thus understand why he is along for the ride.
Additionally (or perhaps as a result) the story suffers from some pacing issues as the film doesn’t always provide clear or strong markers to help the viewer understand what exactly is motivating the characters throughout the film. Rather the film often holds a bit too long on sequences in an attempt to showcase the beautiful world and let the view ponder their own meaning of what they are watching.
This becomes problematic as the characters never really become likeable or establish any depth beyond the paint by numbers plot. Human becomes Cyborg, Cyborg works for a corporation/government, Cyborg figures out they have been lied to, revenge ensues.
In the end, I found myself checking my watch more than I had hoped as the film felt long and tired. If it wasn’t for the stunning world created on screen I would have been completely bored. It’s a shame because I really wanted to like this film. I cannot help but think that if this film had come out in 1999, it would have been amazing!
But in 2017 it feels average at best. Still, Ghost in the Shell is an adequate adaptation that fans of the franchise will enjoy. However I feel this adaptation does not help elevate the franchise beyond what the 1995 Anime has already accomplished.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“What first attracted you Dr Mann to the movie with the scantily-clad Amazonians?”
Amazonians deliver! And how. The much anticipated new Wonder Woman movie is with us, and for once the film lives up to the wall-to-wall marketing hype.
With a heavy dose of mythology, Diana is growing up as the cossetted daughter of Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen, “Gladiator”), the Queen of the Amazons, on the hidden paradise island of Themyscira. Trained up as a warrior by Hippolyta’s sister, General Antiope (Robin Wright of “House of Cards”), Diana is clearly something special. Her ego is reinforced by the knowledge that she was made of clay with life breathed into her by the God Zeus. It’s enough to turn a girl’s head!
It’s 1917 and the man-free paradise is shaken up when an American spy by the name of Steve Trevor (Chris Pine, “Star Trek: Beyond“) crash-lands in the waters off Themyscira. (And yes… you didn’t mishear me… this film genuinely features a hero with both the names “Steve” and ‘Trevor”). Prince Eric – no, sorry, wrong film – is saved and awakened on the beach by Diana as the others arrive. “Thank God!”, say the Amazonians. “At last, someone to process the 200 year backlog of washing and ironing”!
But Steve (an “above average specimen”, LOL) is not long for paradise as he needs to return to the war with the results of his spy-work: a chemistry book stolen from the gorgeously deformed Dr Maru (Elena Anaya), gas-developer for the evil General Ludendorff (Danny Huston). Seeing Ludendorff to be her God-like nemesis Ares, Diana returns with Steve to the WW1 battlefields with the intent of killing the God of War and so ending the ‘war to end all wars’.
Much ‘fish out of water’ fun is had with Diana meeting civilised London society, although perhaps this section of the film doesn’t quite live up to its full potential: having ice cream for the first time, without any sign of surprise, all she can come up with is an amusing but rather lame “You must be very proud”.
But where the film really accelerates into awesomeness is when Diana reaches ‘The Front’. She emerges from the trenches like some shimmering vision of hotness, to set male and lesbian hearts a flutter. Its the most memorable trench-exit since the finale of “Black Adder 4”, and the subsequent scenes of Diana single-handedly facing the German guns is for me one of the most compelling and enjoyable scenes in any recent DC or Marvel movie.
Holding all this together is the ex-Israeli army-trainer Gal Gadot in the title role. And man oh man, what a Gal! Statuesque, athletic but also sweet, charming and emotionally fragile she completely owns this role from beginning to end. Gadot made a memorable entry in the otherwise poor “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (#marthagate #neverforget #neverforgive) but nothing prepares you for just how great she is in this outing. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that this film, although having a UK 12 certificate, is a film of immense danger to heterosexual teenagers of any age (#humor):
All boys will be cast into a lifetime of misery, never able to find a woman that can possibly live up to the impossibly perfect vision of Diana Prince, tearing up the German army with fists and whip!;
All girls WILL BECOME LESBIANS AFTER WATCHING THIS FILM!
Parents: you have been warned! 🙂
Chris Pine – the thinking women’s Chris Pratt – once again proves himself as a talented actor who manages to successfully morph to inhabit the role he plays. Much as he did in the excellent “Hell or High Water“, not once did I equate him to be James Tiberius Kirk after the first 5 minutes.
Effective in supporting roles are David Thewlis (“Harry Potter”) as a ‘helpful’ army bod and an almost unrecognisable Lucy Davis (“The Office”) as Etta, Steve’s comedic secretary. Steve’s rather unlikely sidekicks of Sameer (Said Taghmaoui, “American Hustle“), Charlie (Ewen Bremner, “Trainspotting”) and ‘The Chief’ (Eugene Brave Rock “The Revenant“) all rather fade into the woodwork by comparison.
I saw the film in 3D (“careful now… you could take an eye out with those things”) and very good it was too. Aside from some rather unnecessary Amazonian arrows, its never feels overdone, and elements of it were extremely effective.
Another star of the show is the superb Wonder Woman theme by Hans Zimmer, here rolled out by the film’s composer Rupert Gregson-Williams (“Hacksaw Ridge“). Unfortunately, the rest of the soundtrack is not particularly memorable.
The film shifts into more traditional yawn-worthy ‘superhero finale’ mode in the last twenty minutes, which is a bit of a shame. It’s also really curious that for such a sexually charged film there is an almost complete absence of ‘lurrve’ on show. The one love scene coquettishly fades to a view of the outside window. Was this to protect the film’s family friendly rating (probably) or that the director didn’t want to show her heroine in a remotely submissive position (possibly)? More frustratingly, the morning after there is no mention of it at all! (“Move along, nothing to see here”). I at least wanted some sort of recognition that a human/God liaison had taken place: Steve grimacing a bit when he sits down; or Diana on the blower to Themyscira saying “Yes, you were right Mum. 5 minutes in, and it just snapped clean off!”
I know my friend David Moody (of markanddave vblog fame, and a big DC/Marvel fan) was generally disappointed with the film. Conversely, Amy Andrews from the ever-excellent Oh That Film Blog loved it. I’m with Amy on this one, and greatly enjoyed it as a well-constructed action rollercoaster. The nearly two and a half hours sped by. By the way (and I took one for the team here) there is no “monkey” at the end of the film’s credit to hang on for.
Patty Jenkins (“Monster”) directs and knows the audience she is aiming to please. One can only imagine the empowering impact this film will have on young girls, crossing their wrists to ‘THAT’ music and, in their imagination, casting terrorists into the hell that they should be consigned to. In this week of yet more Isis atrocity in London, Wonder Woman is a role-model we could all stand and salute: “I believe in love” too.
With a heavy dose of mythology, Diana is growing up as the cossetted daughter of Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen, “Gladiator”), the Queen of the Amazons, on the hidden paradise island of Themyscira. Trained up as a warrior by Hippolyta’s sister, General Antiope (Robin Wright of “House of Cards”), Diana is clearly something special. Her ego is reinforced by the knowledge that she was made of clay with life breathed into her by the God Zeus. It’s enough to turn a girl’s head!
It’s 1917 and the man-free paradise is shaken up when an American spy by the name of Steve Trevor (Chris Pine, “Star Trek: Beyond“) crash-lands in the waters off Themyscira. (And yes… you didn’t mishear me… this film genuinely features a hero with both the names “Steve” and ‘Trevor”). Prince Eric – no, sorry, wrong film – is saved and awakened on the beach by Diana as the others arrive. “Thank God!”, say the Amazonians. “At last, someone to process the 200 year backlog of washing and ironing”!
But Steve (an “above average specimen”, LOL) is not long for paradise as he needs to return to the war with the results of his spy-work: a chemistry book stolen from the gorgeously deformed Dr Maru (Elena Anaya), gas-developer for the evil General Ludendorff (Danny Huston). Seeing Ludendorff to be her God-like nemesis Ares, Diana returns with Steve to the WW1 battlefields with the intent of killing the God of War and so ending the ‘war to end all wars’.
Much ‘fish out of water’ fun is had with Diana meeting civilised London society, although perhaps this section of the film doesn’t quite live up to its full potential: having ice cream for the first time, without any sign of surprise, all she can come up with is an amusing but rather lame “You must be very proud”.
But where the film really accelerates into awesomeness is when Diana reaches ‘The Front’. She emerges from the trenches like some shimmering vision of hotness, to set male and lesbian hearts a flutter. Its the most memorable trench-exit since the finale of “Black Adder 4”, and the subsequent scenes of Diana single-handedly facing the German guns is for me one of the most compelling and enjoyable scenes in any recent DC or Marvel movie.
Holding all this together is the ex-Israeli army-trainer Gal Gadot in the title role. And man oh man, what a Gal! Statuesque, athletic but also sweet, charming and emotionally fragile she completely owns this role from beginning to end. Gadot made a memorable entry in the otherwise poor “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (#marthagate #neverforget #neverforgive) but nothing prepares you for just how great she is in this outing. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that this film, although having a UK 12 certificate, is a film of immense danger to heterosexual teenagers of any age (#humor):
All boys will be cast into a lifetime of misery, never able to find a woman that can possibly live up to the impossibly perfect vision of Diana Prince, tearing up the German army with fists and whip!;
All girls WILL BECOME LESBIANS AFTER WATCHING THIS FILM!
Parents: you have been warned! 🙂
Chris Pine – the thinking women’s Chris Pratt – once again proves himself as a talented actor who manages to successfully morph to inhabit the role he plays. Much as he did in the excellent “Hell or High Water“, not once did I equate him to be James Tiberius Kirk after the first 5 minutes.
Effective in supporting roles are David Thewlis (“Harry Potter”) as a ‘helpful’ army bod and an almost unrecognisable Lucy Davis (“The Office”) as Etta, Steve’s comedic secretary. Steve’s rather unlikely sidekicks of Sameer (Said Taghmaoui, “American Hustle“), Charlie (Ewen Bremner, “Trainspotting”) and ‘The Chief’ (Eugene Brave Rock “The Revenant“) all rather fade into the woodwork by comparison.
I saw the film in 3D (“careful now… you could take an eye out with those things”) and very good it was too. Aside from some rather unnecessary Amazonian arrows, its never feels overdone, and elements of it were extremely effective.
Another star of the show is the superb Wonder Woman theme by Hans Zimmer, here rolled out by the film’s composer Rupert Gregson-Williams (“Hacksaw Ridge“). Unfortunately, the rest of the soundtrack is not particularly memorable.
The film shifts into more traditional yawn-worthy ‘superhero finale’ mode in the last twenty minutes, which is a bit of a shame. It’s also really curious that for such a sexually charged film there is an almost complete absence of ‘lurrve’ on show. The one love scene coquettishly fades to a view of the outside window. Was this to protect the film’s family friendly rating (probably) or that the director didn’t want to show her heroine in a remotely submissive position (possibly)? More frustratingly, the morning after there is no mention of it at all! (“Move along, nothing to see here”). I at least wanted some sort of recognition that a human/God liaison had taken place: Steve grimacing a bit when he sits down; or Diana on the blower to Themyscira saying “Yes, you were right Mum. 5 minutes in, and it just snapped clean off!”
I know my friend David Moody (of markanddave vblog fame, and a big DC/Marvel fan) was generally disappointed with the film. Conversely, Amy Andrews from the ever-excellent Oh That Film Blog loved it. I’m with Amy on this one, and greatly enjoyed it as a well-constructed action rollercoaster. The nearly two and a half hours sped by. By the way (and I took one for the team here) there is no “monkey” at the end of the film’s credit to hang on for.
Patty Jenkins (“Monster”) directs and knows the audience she is aiming to please. One can only imagine the empowering impact this film will have on young girls, crossing their wrists to ‘THAT’ music and, in their imagination, casting terrorists into the hell that they should be consigned to. In this week of yet more Isis atrocity in London, Wonder Woman is a role-model we could all stand and salute: “I believe in love” too.