Search
Search results
Frank Herbert's Dune, the Graphic Novel book 3: The Prophet
5.0
Rate It
Book
The highly anticipated finale of the graphic novel adaptation of Frank Herbert's 1965 novel Dune...
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2589 KP) rated Murder in the Piazza in Books
Sep 10, 2022 (Updated Sep 10, 2022)
Murder in Rome
Maggie White’s husband has been sent to Rome for two years for his job, and she’s gone along with him. After a few months of living the life of leisure, she has found a job working for Masterpiece Tours, a specialty tour company that offers painting lessons and tours of some of the museums and famous locations in the city. She’s barely started and she’s already fantasizing about ways to kill her boss, Lord Phillip, an English expat. However, she is shocked to find him shot in his office one evening. The police don’t seem that interested in figuring out what happened, so Maggie starts investigating. Can she figure out what is going on?
This was a good travel themed mystery. It brought Rome to life in such a way that I felt I was there with Maggie. Unfortunately, the pacing of the mystery was off early on, but I did appreciate how everything came together at the end. We met many of the characters in a group setting, but they became distinct people as the story progressed, so it wasn’t really an issue. If you are looking for a virtual visit to Rome with a side of murder, this is the book for you.
This was a good travel themed mystery. It brought Rome to life in such a way that I felt I was there with Maggie. Unfortunately, the pacing of the mystery was off early on, but I did appreciate how everything came together at the end. We met many of the characters in a group setting, but they became distinct people as the story progressed, so it wasn’t really an issue. If you are looking for a virtual visit to Rome with a side of murder, this is the book for you.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Northman (2022) in Movies
May 11, 2022
Robert Eggers continues his winning streak with The Northman, surely one of the most visually stunning and compelling movies in recent years. A Viking revenge story presented in his signature style is just cinematic crack waiting to happen as far as I'm concerned.
The first third is a fast moving setup that effectively establishes the characters and shows off quite an epic production. After that, The Northman becomes a tight and slow burning thriller as Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) exacts a psychologically torturous revenge on the people who killer his father. It's a perfect marriage of powerful character drama, weird imagery, Viking culture and beliefs, bizarre gore, and fantasy set pieces, and it's slower pace ensures that it's utterly captivating.
The whole film looks incredible from start to finish and is complimented by a wonderful music score.
It's all cemented by a stacked cast. Skarsgård is a capable lead for sure, and is just a big walking muscle in this, the manly bastard. Anya Taylor-Joy is great as always, and the supporting cast boasts the likes of Nicole Kidman, Willem Dafoe, Ethan Hawke, and Claes Bang who are all stellar.
I can't heap enough praise on The Northman, another homerun from Eggers. I'd happily call it a masterpiece.
The first third is a fast moving setup that effectively establishes the characters and shows off quite an epic production. After that, The Northman becomes a tight and slow burning thriller as Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) exacts a psychologically torturous revenge on the people who killer his father. It's a perfect marriage of powerful character drama, weird imagery, Viking culture and beliefs, bizarre gore, and fantasy set pieces, and it's slower pace ensures that it's utterly captivating.
The whole film looks incredible from start to finish and is complimented by a wonderful music score.
It's all cemented by a stacked cast. Skarsgård is a capable lead for sure, and is just a big walking muscle in this, the manly bastard. Anya Taylor-Joy is great as always, and the supporting cast boasts the likes of Nicole Kidman, Willem Dafoe, Ethan Hawke, and Claes Bang who are all stellar.
I can't heap enough praise on The Northman, another homerun from Eggers. I'd happily call it a masterpiece.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) in Movies
Jun 19, 2022
I have a huge amount of respect for TTCM2, mainly for how different it is to its predecessor, which of course happens to be one of the most respected horrors of all time. Tobe Hoopers return is a welcome one, and his desire to not repeat his original masterpiece is a smart move. It results in a slice of 80s horror that is flamboyantly ridiculous, which still manages to keep its identity intact underneath it all. There's a lot less subtlety this time around - the brooding and implied violence we have seen before is replaced with more gore and Dennis Hopper dual wielding chainsaws with a third strapped to his back. It's weirdly great. The gore is significantly upped, and Leatherface is a little more cartoony. We're also introduced to Bill Moseley as Chop-Top, a fan favourite character who is a little too slapstick for my taste, but I can't fault Moseley for 100% commiting to the bit. Caroline Williams is a delight as this entries badass final girl as well.
TTCM2 is flawed for sure, but it doesn't fall into the rinse and repeat trap that so many sequels do, and it's easy to see why it has a strong following.
TTCM2 is flawed for sure, but it doesn't fall into the rinse and repeat trap that so many sequels do, and it's easy to see why it has a strong following.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Lake Placid: The Final Chapter (2012) in Movies
Mar 22, 2022
Lake Placid 4 is straight up wild. It starts with Yancy Butler asking a crocodile if "they really wanna do this" before fighting it. That's where we're at. There's a bit where a group of people see a huge crocodile coming for them so they jump in a 4x4 and drive insanely fast away from it, looking back to make sure they're getting away. I though to myself "why are they looking, there's no way a crocodile is keeping up with them, stupid ass" but no, the crocodile is galloping like a fucking horse at the same speed behind them. There's another part where a dude gets torn apart by baby crocodiles like a school of piranhas or some shit. None of it makes sense but fuck it, who even cares. The CGI somehow manages to be better and worse than the last one. Robert Englund is chewing up the scenery whenever he's on screen. I feel like I'm going mad because I have low key enjoyed all of the trash sequels so far.
Some people say that Citizen Kane is the biggest masterpiece of cinema ever put out there. I argue that it's Lake Placid: The Final Chapter (even though there are two more to go *chefs kiss*)
Some people say that Citizen Kane is the biggest masterpiece of cinema ever put out there. I argue that it's Lake Placid: The Final Chapter (even though there are two more to go *chefs kiss*)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Mar 4, 2018
Groundbreaking Special Effects (1 more)
Music
Truly...a masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Jul 4, 2018
A Masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Thrilling from start to finish
Sci-fi seems to be having somewhat of a renaissance recently, that is, if you don’t count Independence Day: Resurgence which could’ve easily derailed the whole genre, never mind just the franchise.
What with last year’s The Martian, the rebirth of Star Wars and the upcoming Passengers, sci-fi is really getting its mojo back. The subject of this review, Arrival, has been hailed as a masterpiece across the Atlantic. But is it worthy of such a strong adjective?
From the director of Prisoners and Sicario; Arrival is not only one of the best sci-fi films of the last year, it’s up there with the genre’s greatest assets. We’re talking a Close Encounters level of good.
Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) leads an elite team of investigators when humongous spaceships touch down in 12 locations around the world. As nations teeter on the verge of global war, Banks and her crew must race against time to find a way to communicate with the extra-terrestrial visitors. Hoping to unravel the mystery, she takes a chance that could threaten her life and quite possibly all of mankind.
Amy Adams leads a pleasing cast that includes commanding turns from Forest Whitaker and Jeremy Renner but it is in our female protagonist that we find the most joy. Adams is fast becoming one of Hollywood’s best actresses and her complex character is superbly written and incredibly well acted.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is truly exceptional with the alien craft taking a backseat to sweeping landscapes from across the world. The focal point of the film, a lush and open Montana valley is filmed to a breath-taking standard especially during Arrival’s opening sequences.
When it comes to special effects, director Denis Villeneuve doesn’t bombard the audience with constant CGI, instead opting for a laidback approach. Even the aliens themselves are understated in their appearance. It’s also fair to say that the film is a slow-burner with very little in the way of action – though it manages to stay well-clear of becoming tedious.
In spite of all this though, Arrival’s greatest strength is its story. This is thinking person’s sci-fi that somehow manages to cement its themes with an emotional heft of gravitational proportions. Throughout the 114 minute running time, we’re constantly reminded of our characters and where it is they come from, something missing from the majority of mass-market blockbusters these days.
Overall, Arrival is more than worthy of an adjective like masterpiece. From it’s incredible story and beautiful cinematography to what is Amy Adams’ best performance to date, it’s a new classic for the sci-fi genre and well worth a watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/11/thrilling-from-start-to-finish-arrival-review/
What with last year’s The Martian, the rebirth of Star Wars and the upcoming Passengers, sci-fi is really getting its mojo back. The subject of this review, Arrival, has been hailed as a masterpiece across the Atlantic. But is it worthy of such a strong adjective?
From the director of Prisoners and Sicario; Arrival is not only one of the best sci-fi films of the last year, it’s up there with the genre’s greatest assets. We’re talking a Close Encounters level of good.
Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) leads an elite team of investigators when humongous spaceships touch down in 12 locations around the world. As nations teeter on the verge of global war, Banks and her crew must race against time to find a way to communicate with the extra-terrestrial visitors. Hoping to unravel the mystery, she takes a chance that could threaten her life and quite possibly all of mankind.
Amy Adams leads a pleasing cast that includes commanding turns from Forest Whitaker and Jeremy Renner but it is in our female protagonist that we find the most joy. Adams is fast becoming one of Hollywood’s best actresses and her complex character is superbly written and incredibly well acted.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is truly exceptional with the alien craft taking a backseat to sweeping landscapes from across the world. The focal point of the film, a lush and open Montana valley is filmed to a breath-taking standard especially during Arrival’s opening sequences.
When it comes to special effects, director Denis Villeneuve doesn’t bombard the audience with constant CGI, instead opting for a laidback approach. Even the aliens themselves are understated in their appearance. It’s also fair to say that the film is a slow-burner with very little in the way of action – though it manages to stay well-clear of becoming tedious.
In spite of all this though, Arrival’s greatest strength is its story. This is thinking person’s sci-fi that somehow manages to cement its themes with an emotional heft of gravitational proportions. Throughout the 114 minute running time, we’re constantly reminded of our characters and where it is they come from, something missing from the majority of mass-market blockbusters these days.
Overall, Arrival is more than worthy of an adjective like masterpiece. From it’s incredible story and beautiful cinematography to what is Amy Adams’ best performance to date, it’s a new classic for the sci-fi genre and well worth a watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/11/thrilling-from-start-to-finish-arrival-review/
Beware of Pity
Anthea Bell, Stefan Zweig and David Pearson
Book
Stefan's Zweig's Beware of Pity is an almost unbearably tense and powerful tale of unrequited love...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Great Direction (1 more)
Brilliant cast
Not your typical alien invasion flick.
Arrival is the most recent movie from one of my favourite directors working today, Denis Villeneuve. This guy’s track record has been incredible so far, with my personal favourite of his being 2013’s Prisoners. Since then I have been following this guy’s career and although in my opinion he hasn’t since replicated the masterpiece that was Prisoners, he has came very close several times with Enemy, with Sicario and now with Arrival as well. The cast are also solid here; Jeremy Renner does what he does best, plays a supporting role and shines in a backseat position. Whittaker is, as always great in the film and is engaging throughout the runtime. This is also probably Amy Adams best role, I don’t hate Adams as an actress, but I do feel that she is extremely overrated and is never anything more than functional in a role. Here though, she actually has a character arc and gives a decent performance. Rodger Deakins’ cinematography is missed though, Bradford Young does sell the tone of the movie consistently through his shots, but for me no one comes close to Deakins behing the camera. Overall my hype for this movie was met and it is a solid addition to Villeneuve’s filmography and doesn’t let down his consistently great track record.