Search
Search results
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Where Dead Men Meet in Books
May 16, 2018
Originality is key. In this regard, Where Dead Men Meet by Mark Mills is so predictable that you already know the outcome from the first page. Kidnapped at a young age and taken to another country, Luke Hamilton grows up believing that his family is dead. After Sister Agnes, a key character in Luke’s life, turns up dead, Luke quickly finds himself caught up in a situation that spins out of control. His very existence is unfinished business to the Karaman brothers, a pair of crime lords whose reach is impossibly long. Brushing close with death, Luke Hamilton soon flees across several countries. Along the way, he meets Pippi. Can he trust her?
Well, the answer there is clear as day, but I’ll leave it at that. There’s nothing original about the plot in this book. Absolutely nothing, which makes it a rather dull read for me. Luke Hamilton is a misfit. An orphan of a wealthy family, too. What should be a major plot twist in Where Dead Men Meet becomes obvious before its actual reveal, too. This is a serious no-go for me. If I’ve read it once, I don’t want to read it again. If I’ve watched it once, I don’t typically want to read it again either.
The characters are alright. Luke Hamilton seems a bit soft, Pippi is roguish, and the others, which are largely minor in comparison, are fairly standard in their actions. I never felt any connection to any of them. If you’ve been reading my blog for a while, then you know that my emotional connection to a character is a must.
Despite these major flaws, Mark Mills can write. Though I don’t care much for Where Dead Men Meet‘s plot, Mills’s style of writing is nice. I haven’t had the opportunity to read more of his work, but, provided it is more original in its concept, I’d definitely give it a try. This book is probably better suited to readers that prefer more cinematic thrillers.
I would like to thank the publisher for providing me with an advanced copy via NetGalley for unbiased review.
Well, the answer there is clear as day, but I’ll leave it at that. There’s nothing original about the plot in this book. Absolutely nothing, which makes it a rather dull read for me. Luke Hamilton is a misfit. An orphan of a wealthy family, too. What should be a major plot twist in Where Dead Men Meet becomes obvious before its actual reveal, too. This is a serious no-go for me. If I’ve read it once, I don’t want to read it again. If I’ve watched it once, I don’t typically want to read it again either.
The characters are alright. Luke Hamilton seems a bit soft, Pippi is roguish, and the others, which are largely minor in comparison, are fairly standard in their actions. I never felt any connection to any of them. If you’ve been reading my blog for a while, then you know that my emotional connection to a character is a must.
Despite these major flaws, Mark Mills can write. Though I don’t care much for Where Dead Men Meet‘s plot, Mills’s style of writing is nice. I haven’t had the opportunity to read more of his work, but, provided it is more original in its concept, I’d definitely give it a try. This book is probably better suited to readers that prefer more cinematic thrillers.
I would like to thank the publisher for providing me with an advanced copy via NetGalley for unbiased review.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Jefferson's Treasure: How Albert Gallatin Saved the New Nation from Debt in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Jefferson’s Treasure, by Gregory May, details, “how Albert Gallatin saved the new nation from debt.” Appointed by President Thomas Jefferson to be his Treasury Secretary, Gallatin continued under President Madison, maintaining that position for twelve years. During his tenure, he abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
So who was this man that undid Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal system, rejecting it along with Madison and Jefferson? Because both Presidents did not understand the financial system, they depended on Gallatin to reform it. Gallatin arrived in America in 1790 from Geneva and rose up to become a trusted advisor of the Republicans. Six years before Jefferson was elected President, Gallatin’s Pennsylvania neighbors rebelled against the tax on whiskey. He supported them in principle but opposed the violence that ensued, burning the local tax collector’s house, robbing the mail, and marching on Pittsburgh.
The play “Hamilton” uses revisionist history. The real Hamilton believed in big government and wanted to continue funding federal deficits. He based his theories on the British who used the money to fund their large military conflicts, believing that the ability to borrow endless amounts of money would allow the new United States to become a great nation. Jefferson and Madison thought Hamilton’s system, straight from the British way, was tainted with tyranny. As May noted, “It made the people pay obnoxious taxes in order to fund interest payments on a mounting federal debt and the costs of an expensive military establishment. It shifted money from ordinary taxpayers to the relatively few rich men who held the government’s bonds. That was just the sort of thing that had led Americans to revolt against Britain in the first place.”
May believes, “The hip-hop immigrant hero of the Broadway musical is a myth. The musical might be a great work of art, but is relies on misconceptions of Hamilton. He was not an immigrant, but a migrant within the British Empire. Also, he was not a man of the people, as Gallatin was, but an elitist.”
While Hamilton committed to paying only the interest on the government’s debt, Gallatin committed the government to repaying fixed amounts of the principal each year. He also insisted that the government should never spend more than it earned except in times of war. By slashing federal expenses, Gallatin was able to get rid of the tax on whiskey and abolish the entire internal revenue service.
The Republicans, an agrarian society, distrusted these elitists where two-thirds of the government debt belonged to a few hundred very wealthy men residing mainly in Philadelphia, New York, and other mercantile cities. They saw Hamilton’s plan of collecting taxes from ordinary citizens as a way for a few rich men to become even wealthier. Implementing these excise taxes required government officials to inspect, quantify, and mark the items subject to tax.
The Hamilton system benefited the wealthy debt holders and spectators at the expense of the average taxpayer who had to pay the interest. The government would borrow more than the people could pay. Hamilton tried to hide how much money the government was actually spending and spiraled the debt higher and higher.
This was an important part of the British tax base, and “I wanted to show how unpopular it was. Hamilton and company were resented because they created a tax collection network that affected the lives of ordinary citizens. The excise tax is a form of internal taxation, while tariffs are a form of external taxation that fell on the well to do. Remember mostly the well to do bought imports. The Republicans once they came to power relied on import duties rather than excise taxes.”
May further explained, “When Jefferson and his administration came to power it was Gallatin who got rid of Hamilton’s deficit finance system and cut taxes. By the time he has left office he has repaid half the federal debt and set up a program for repaying the rest.”
Anyone who wants to understand the early economic systems of the Founding Fathers will enjoy this book. It shows how Gallatin, by killing Hamilton’s financial system, abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
So who was this man that undid Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal system, rejecting it along with Madison and Jefferson? Because both Presidents did not understand the financial system, they depended on Gallatin to reform it. Gallatin arrived in America in 1790 from Geneva and rose up to become a trusted advisor of the Republicans. Six years before Jefferson was elected President, Gallatin’s Pennsylvania neighbors rebelled against the tax on whiskey. He supported them in principle but opposed the violence that ensued, burning the local tax collector’s house, robbing the mail, and marching on Pittsburgh.
The play “Hamilton” uses revisionist history. The real Hamilton believed in big government and wanted to continue funding federal deficits. He based his theories on the British who used the money to fund their large military conflicts, believing that the ability to borrow endless amounts of money would allow the new United States to become a great nation. Jefferson and Madison thought Hamilton’s system, straight from the British way, was tainted with tyranny. As May noted, “It made the people pay obnoxious taxes in order to fund interest payments on a mounting federal debt and the costs of an expensive military establishment. It shifted money from ordinary taxpayers to the relatively few rich men who held the government’s bonds. That was just the sort of thing that had led Americans to revolt against Britain in the first place.”
May believes, “The hip-hop immigrant hero of the Broadway musical is a myth. The musical might be a great work of art, but is relies on misconceptions of Hamilton. He was not an immigrant, but a migrant within the British Empire. Also, he was not a man of the people, as Gallatin was, but an elitist.”
While Hamilton committed to paying only the interest on the government’s debt, Gallatin committed the government to repaying fixed amounts of the principal each year. He also insisted that the government should never spend more than it earned except in times of war. By slashing federal expenses, Gallatin was able to get rid of the tax on whiskey and abolish the entire internal revenue service.
The Republicans, an agrarian society, distrusted these elitists where two-thirds of the government debt belonged to a few hundred very wealthy men residing mainly in Philadelphia, New York, and other mercantile cities. They saw Hamilton’s plan of collecting taxes from ordinary citizens as a way for a few rich men to become even wealthier. Implementing these excise taxes required government officials to inspect, quantify, and mark the items subject to tax.
The Hamilton system benefited the wealthy debt holders and spectators at the expense of the average taxpayer who had to pay the interest. The government would borrow more than the people could pay. Hamilton tried to hide how much money the government was actually spending and spiraled the debt higher and higher.
This was an important part of the British tax base, and “I wanted to show how unpopular it was. Hamilton and company were resented because they created a tax collection network that affected the lives of ordinary citizens. The excise tax is a form of internal taxation, while tariffs are a form of external taxation that fell on the well to do. Remember mostly the well to do bought imports. The Republicans once they came to power relied on import duties rather than excise taxes.”
May further explained, “When Jefferson and his administration came to power it was Gallatin who got rid of Hamilton’s deficit finance system and cut taxes. By the time he has left office he has repaid half the federal debt and set up a program for repaying the rest.”
Anyone who wants to understand the early economic systems of the Founding Fathers will enjoy this book. It shows how Gallatin, by killing Hamilton’s financial system, abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gray Man (2022) in Movies
Aug 6, 2022
Entertaining Enough...but...NOTHING NEW
Have you seen the touring company of Hamilton when it came to your town? You liked it, didn’t you? I sure did, but I didn’t like it as much as I liked the Broadway Company of Hamilton that I saw in NYC the year before.
Such is the case with the new Ryan Gosling/Chris Evans action flick THE GRAY MAN. It is reminiscent of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films - and is very enjoyable - but I like the other movies better.
Directed by THE RUSSO BROTHERS (AVENGERS: ENDGAME) and written by Joe Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (writers of AVENGERS: ENDGAME), based on the book by Mark Greaney, THE GRAY MAN stars Gosling (LA LA LAND) as an enigmatic secret agent (is their any other kind) who is sent on a deadly mission that, perhaps isn’t what it seems on the surface (are there any other)?
This is a plot VERY reminiscent of the aforementioned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films and when Chris Evans (CAPTAIN AMERICA, of course) and Ana de Armas (the latest James Bond flick, NO TIME TO DIE) show up as a few other mercenaries who might be on Gosling’s side - or might not - you can’t help but be reminded of those other flicks.
And that’s the trouble with THE GRAY MAN, it just can’t compete (at least in my memory) with those other films, mostly because it doesn’t do anything new. It is your basic “Super Spy” flick, very professionally done, but it isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.
The actors (Gosling, de Armas and Evans) are very good in their roles and have enigmatic (Gosling), out of control (Evans) and mysterious (de Armas) down very well and are ably assisted by wily veterans like Alfre Woodard (CROSS CREEK) and good ol’ Billy Bob Thornton (SLINGBLADE) who seem to having a good time going along for the ride.
And…it’s a fun ride…the action scenes are well done, set-up and choreographed professionally with just enough unique ways to take out a henchman or blow-up some sort of transport to make it interesting to watch, but…again…it’s really nothing new.
An entertaining 2 hours of film-making - and a film that will have a sequel on the way - there are worst ways to spend your time and with good (enough) action sequences and interesting and charismatic performers to watch - THE GRAY MAN suits its purpose…it entertains.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the new Ryan Gosling/Chris Evans action flick THE GRAY MAN. It is reminiscent of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films - and is very enjoyable - but I like the other movies better.
Directed by THE RUSSO BROTHERS (AVENGERS: ENDGAME) and written by Joe Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (writers of AVENGERS: ENDGAME), based on the book by Mark Greaney, THE GRAY MAN stars Gosling (LA LA LAND) as an enigmatic secret agent (is their any other kind) who is sent on a deadly mission that, perhaps isn’t what it seems on the surface (are there any other)?
This is a plot VERY reminiscent of the aforementioned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films and when Chris Evans (CAPTAIN AMERICA, of course) and Ana de Armas (the latest James Bond flick, NO TIME TO DIE) show up as a few other mercenaries who might be on Gosling’s side - or might not - you can’t help but be reminded of those other flicks.
And that’s the trouble with THE GRAY MAN, it just can’t compete (at least in my memory) with those other films, mostly because it doesn’t do anything new. It is your basic “Super Spy” flick, very professionally done, but it isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.
The actors (Gosling, de Armas and Evans) are very good in their roles and have enigmatic (Gosling), out of control (Evans) and mysterious (de Armas) down very well and are ably assisted by wily veterans like Alfre Woodard (CROSS CREEK) and good ol’ Billy Bob Thornton (SLINGBLADE) who seem to having a good time going along for the ride.
And…it’s a fun ride…the action scenes are well done, set-up and choreographed professionally with just enough unique ways to take out a henchman or blow-up some sort of transport to make it interesting to watch, but…again…it’s really nothing new.
An entertaining 2 hours of film-making - and a film that will have a sequel on the way - there are worst ways to spend your time and with good (enough) action sequences and interesting and charismatic performers to watch - THE GRAY MAN suits its purpose…it entertains.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Awix (3310 KP) rated King Kong Lives (1986) in Movies
Jun 15, 2018
Ape Sh*t
Inexplicably boring and frankly quite weird attempt to cash in on the Kong name: having survived being machine gunned off the top of the Twin Towers and falling five hundred metres onto concrete (and thus proving that some gorillas just can't take a hint), Kong is in a coma being looked after by Linda Hamilton, who should have read the script before signing on. A no-mark leading man is able to hunt up a female giant gorilla to help out with a blood transfusion, but when the two apes get it on and escape, there's panic all round.
History has seen many overly optimistic monster movies, but few quite as out-of-touch with reality as King Kong Lives. It's not just that the story is preposterous (it is), or that the special effects are terrible (they are), but that one of main emotional relationships at the heart of the story is realised through the medium of two stuntmen in not-great gorilla suits nuzzling up to each other in simulation of simian romance. Your mind rebels when it is exposed to this stuff. 'No,' comes the interior monologue, 'no. Even the big bird in The Giant Claw was more convincing than this. I object. I am on strike from this point on.' With your suspension of disbelief in full revolt, you are forced to watch the rest of the movie simply in 'how much worse can this possibly get?' mode. And the answer is: considerably. To be honest it's only the sheer badness of the movie that keeps it interesting; anything remotely competent is also rather dull. I don't think the 1976 version of King Kong is nearly as bad as most people say; it certainly looks like a classic compared to this.
History has seen many overly optimistic monster movies, but few quite as out-of-touch with reality as King Kong Lives. It's not just that the story is preposterous (it is), or that the special effects are terrible (they are), but that one of main emotional relationships at the heart of the story is realised through the medium of two stuntmen in not-great gorilla suits nuzzling up to each other in simulation of simian romance. Your mind rebels when it is exposed to this stuff. 'No,' comes the interior monologue, 'no. Even the big bird in The Giant Claw was more convincing than this. I object. I am on strike from this point on.' With your suspension of disbelief in full revolt, you are forced to watch the rest of the movie simply in 'how much worse can this possibly get?' mode. And the answer is: considerably. To be honest it's only the sheer badness of the movie that keeps it interesting; anything remotely competent is also rather dull. I don't think the 1976 version of King Kong is nearly as bad as most people say; it certainly looks like a classic compared to this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Endless (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020
Alexandra Shipp's acting is OK (1 more)
The British Columbian scenary
A Ghost "Ditto" - but without the star quality
Riley (Alexandra Shipp) and Chris (Nicholas Hamilton) are teenage lovers about to be torn apart... but not in the way you think. Riley is about to turn her back on her talent for comic book art to follow her parent's wishes: to study law on the other side of the country in Georgetown. Chris is from the other side of the tracks - aren't they always in these films? - living in a one-parent family with his mother Lee (Bond-girl Famke Janssen).
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Moana (2016) in Movies
Mar 20, 2020
A delightful journey
In what is probably not a surprise to those of you that know me well, I keep a list of films that I have seen and a list of "top films I need to catch up with." (I know, that makes me a "film nerd" and I wear that badge proudly). In perusing the list, I saw that I had yet to see the 2016 Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson Disney animated flick Moana, so thought I'd check it out.
And...I'm glad I did...for I was thoroughly entertained by the story, the characters, the visuals and the music. How is this film not mentioned in the same breath with FROZEN? It is terrific.
Set in the South Pacific, MOANA, the 56th Disney Animated film, tells the tale of...well...Moana...who works with the Demigod Maui to reverse a curse that he started.
Hawaii native Auli'l Cravalho was perfectly cast as the voice of Moana, she is the perfect blend of perky, smart and grounded with a singing voice that is strong and bold. But this film belongs to Dwayne Johnson as Maui. His demigod is brash, egotistical, and cocky...but there is a tenderness and vulnerability to his character that makes Maui lovable and not arrogant and annoying. This is a delicate balance to make and Johnson balances it perfectly. He has a natural charm and charisma that shines through his characterization. I couldn't think of anyone else that could have pulled this role off - oh...did I mention - he sings!
And that is another part of this film that I was surprised by. The music is first rate. As written by Lin-Manuel Miranda (Broadway's HAMILTON) and Opetaia Foa'i and Mark Mancina, the songs are joyous, fun and drive the plot and the characterizations forward. AS does the direction by Ron Clements and John Musker. It is a fast paced film that doesn't really slow down for audiences to think too much about the plot or plot machinations...and that is a good thing.
Is it a perfect film? Well..no. I found the character of the Sea Creature Tamatoa (Jermaine Clement) and the accompanying song to be..."meh"...it was a bump in a fun road. And...the way the plot was resolved was not entirely satisfying for me.
But...these are nits...for MOANA is more focused on the journey - and the relationship between Maui and Moana - than the destination. And this journey is a delightful one to go on.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I'm glad I did...for I was thoroughly entertained by the story, the characters, the visuals and the music. How is this film not mentioned in the same breath with FROZEN? It is terrific.
Set in the South Pacific, MOANA, the 56th Disney Animated film, tells the tale of...well...Moana...who works with the Demigod Maui to reverse a curse that he started.
Hawaii native Auli'l Cravalho was perfectly cast as the voice of Moana, she is the perfect blend of perky, smart and grounded with a singing voice that is strong and bold. But this film belongs to Dwayne Johnson as Maui. His demigod is brash, egotistical, and cocky...but there is a tenderness and vulnerability to his character that makes Maui lovable and not arrogant and annoying. This is a delicate balance to make and Johnson balances it perfectly. He has a natural charm and charisma that shines through his characterization. I couldn't think of anyone else that could have pulled this role off - oh...did I mention - he sings!
And that is another part of this film that I was surprised by. The music is first rate. As written by Lin-Manuel Miranda (Broadway's HAMILTON) and Opetaia Foa'i and Mark Mancina, the songs are joyous, fun and drive the plot and the characterizations forward. AS does the direction by Ron Clements and John Musker. It is a fast paced film that doesn't really slow down for audiences to think too much about the plot or plot machinations...and that is a good thing.
Is it a perfect film? Well..no. I found the character of the Sea Creature Tamatoa (Jermaine Clement) and the accompanying song to be..."meh"...it was a bump in a fun road. And...the way the plot was resolved was not entirely satisfying for me.
But...these are nits...for MOANA is more focused on the journey - and the relationship between Maui and Moana - than the destination. And this journey is a delightful one to go on.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Encanto (2021) in Movies
Dec 28, 2021
Fun Family Friendly Film with GREAT Music
The good thing about travelling by plane over the Holidays is that it is an opportunity to catch up on Movies that were missed. Such is the case with the Disney Animation Film ENCANTO - a film that “came and went” earlier this fall.
And…I’m glad I saw it, for ENCANTO is the family-friendly, fun and heart warming film that is perfect Holiday viewing for the entire family.
Set in the magical Columbian village of ENCANTO, this film tells the tale of a family that are all given magical powers to use to help their village survive and thrive…all, that is, except for Mirabel who becomes somewhat of an outcast with her family for not having a magical gift bestowed upon her.
At first glance, this Animated Musical might remind people of the PIXAR animated film COCO from a few years ago. But that is like saying THE LITTLE MERMAID reminds you of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST or CINDERELLA reminds your of SLEEPING BEAUTY. While there are some striking similarities to COCO, ENCANTO is it’s own film and serves the story of the importance of family very, very well.
Stephanie Beatriz (TV’s BROOKLYN 99) is terrific as the voice of Mirabel, she has that headstrong, optimistic bent to her that many other Disney Princesses/Heroines (MOANA, Anna from FROZEN and Rapunzel in TANGLED are other examples of this). Mirabel is a solid addition to this group, she is a winning personality to spend time with.
The rest of the voices of the family fill the characters well, with the obvious standout being the great John Leguizamo (to tell you what character he voice is to spoil the film). Suffice it to say he is great.
The Direction by Jared Bush and Byron Howard (the Directors of another under-the-radar Disney Animated film, ZOOTOPIA) keep the events flowing and the many, many family members clear so as not to confuse the audience (this is no small feat), they know what they are doing and it shows. The only real mark I have against the movie is that the ending fell just a bit flat for me, but that is just a quibble in a really fine Animated movie.
And then…there is the music.
I did not realize that this film was a musical and was pleasantly tapping my toes on the airplane to the many musical numbers. I made the mental note to find out who wrote these fine tunes and was not too surprised to find out it was the one and only Lin-Manuel Miranda (Broadway’s HAMILTON). This musical genius has done it again.
ENCANTO is streaming on Disney+ so if you have this service and are looking for a fun, family-friendly way to pass a couple of hours, look no further than ENCANTO.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…I’m glad I saw it, for ENCANTO is the family-friendly, fun and heart warming film that is perfect Holiday viewing for the entire family.
Set in the magical Columbian village of ENCANTO, this film tells the tale of a family that are all given magical powers to use to help their village survive and thrive…all, that is, except for Mirabel who becomes somewhat of an outcast with her family for not having a magical gift bestowed upon her.
At first glance, this Animated Musical might remind people of the PIXAR animated film COCO from a few years ago. But that is like saying THE LITTLE MERMAID reminds you of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST or CINDERELLA reminds your of SLEEPING BEAUTY. While there are some striking similarities to COCO, ENCANTO is it’s own film and serves the story of the importance of family very, very well.
Stephanie Beatriz (TV’s BROOKLYN 99) is terrific as the voice of Mirabel, she has that headstrong, optimistic bent to her that many other Disney Princesses/Heroines (MOANA, Anna from FROZEN and Rapunzel in TANGLED are other examples of this). Mirabel is a solid addition to this group, she is a winning personality to spend time with.
The rest of the voices of the family fill the characters well, with the obvious standout being the great John Leguizamo (to tell you what character he voice is to spoil the film). Suffice it to say he is great.
The Direction by Jared Bush and Byron Howard (the Directors of another under-the-radar Disney Animated film, ZOOTOPIA) keep the events flowing and the many, many family members clear so as not to confuse the audience (this is no small feat), they know what they are doing and it shows. The only real mark I have against the movie is that the ending fell just a bit flat for me, but that is just a quibble in a really fine Animated movie.
And then…there is the music.
I did not realize that this film was a musical and was pleasantly tapping my toes on the airplane to the many musical numbers. I made the mental note to find out who wrote these fine tunes and was not too surprised to find out it was the one and only Lin-Manuel Miranda (Broadway’s HAMILTON). This musical genius has done it again.
ENCANTO is streaming on Disney+ so if you have this service and are looking for a fun, family-friendly way to pass a couple of hours, look no further than ENCANTO.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)