Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
Well Acted
In 2012, the conservative Pope Benedict - citing failing health - made the rare move of stepping down from the Papacy. He was, ultimately, replaced by the more Liberal Pope Francis. THE TWO POPES is a fictional account of a conversation that these two men had prior to Benedict's stepping down.
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
JT (287 KP) rated Predators (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Fans of the original Predator will no doubt have been excited to see the trailers for Predators, a script pulled from a filing cabinet in 1994 and given a 2010 make over by Robert Rodriguez, who produces, with Nimród Antal directing.
It was always going to be hard to top Schwarzenegger’s 1987 hit; John McTiernan had little special effects to work with but delivered an action/sci-fi masterpiece with a cast of mercenaries. When the sequel came along Schwarzenegger wanted no part of it, and so it was up to Danny Glover (I’m still getting to old for this shit) to battle on home turf, unsuccessfully in many people’s eyes.
In 2010 we’re back in the jungle only this is no ordinary jungle, this is home field advantage for the Predators. Again, a bunch of unknowns from different specially selected backgrounds are dropped in together to face a new breed of Predator, seemingly engaged in their own tribal turf war.
The story follows some similar paths to the original, macho heroes must work together to fight back, while at the same time avoid being picked off one at a time. The script is disjointed with no prior background as to why these bunch of cut throats have been pooled together, or who is behind it all.
That said those of us who can remember back as far as 1987 will enjoy a homage to the original with scenes like a spectacular waterfall jump, a Yazuka Vs Predator battle which gives us an insight as to what might have happened when Billy stayed behind on the bridge with nothing more than a huge knife for protection. All that and the immortal line “Kill me I’m here!”
Adrien Brody may not seem like your stereotypical action hero but he does do a half decent job, following along the action hero code of A) getting some serious gym time, B) lowering voice to a low growl and C) not giving a shit, then coming back and giving a shit!
The others, well they’re no Dutch, Mac, Billy or Zane but they are a new breed. There is the quiet and yet deadly Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), who is dressed for the most part in a smart grey suit and performs the sword-moves in a well choreographed human vs. Predator duel.
The rest are walking talking archetypal thugs, a Russian beef cake (Oleg Taktarov), a death row serial murderer (Walton Goggins), an African Death Squad killer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) and a cocaine cartel hatchet man (the legend that is Danny Trejo). There is also a rather pointless guest appearance which might lead us into a false sense of security as it is all but cut short, shame!
It was always going to be hard to top Schwarzenegger’s 1987 hit; John McTiernan had little special effects to work with but delivered an action/sci-fi masterpiece with a cast of mercenaries. When the sequel came along Schwarzenegger wanted no part of it, and so it was up to Danny Glover (I’m still getting to old for this shit) to battle on home turf, unsuccessfully in many people’s eyes.
In 2010 we’re back in the jungle only this is no ordinary jungle, this is home field advantage for the Predators. Again, a bunch of unknowns from different specially selected backgrounds are dropped in together to face a new breed of Predator, seemingly engaged in their own tribal turf war.
The story follows some similar paths to the original, macho heroes must work together to fight back, while at the same time avoid being picked off one at a time. The script is disjointed with no prior background as to why these bunch of cut throats have been pooled together, or who is behind it all.
That said those of us who can remember back as far as 1987 will enjoy a homage to the original with scenes like a spectacular waterfall jump, a Yazuka Vs Predator battle which gives us an insight as to what might have happened when Billy stayed behind on the bridge with nothing more than a huge knife for protection. All that and the immortal line “Kill me I’m here!”
Adrien Brody may not seem like your stereotypical action hero but he does do a half decent job, following along the action hero code of A) getting some serious gym time, B) lowering voice to a low growl and C) not giving a shit, then coming back and giving a shit!
The others, well they’re no Dutch, Mac, Billy or Zane but they are a new breed. There is the quiet and yet deadly Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), who is dressed for the most part in a smart grey suit and performs the sword-moves in a well choreographed human vs. Predator duel.
The rest are walking talking archetypal thugs, a Russian beef cake (Oleg Taktarov), a death row serial murderer (Walton Goggins), an African Death Squad killer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) and a cocaine cartel hatchet man (the legend that is Danny Trejo). There is also a rather pointless guest appearance which might lead us into a false sense of security as it is all but cut short, shame!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Inherent Vice (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
“Inherent Vice” Follows Doc (Joaquin Phoenix), a private investigator, as he falls down a dark rabbit hole into a world of crime and systemic corruption.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
I'll Be Gone in the Dark: One Woman's Obsessive Search for the Golden State Killer
9.0
Rate It
Book
Introduction by Gillian Flynn Afterword by Patton Oswalt "This is a one sit-down read. That's how...
Stirfry Stunts – We Bare Bears Cooking Game Starring Chef Ice Bear
Games and Entertainment
App
Use Ice Bear's awesome cooking skills to serve up some delicious dishes in Stirfry Stunts! This app...
The Alex Crow
Book
From the critically acclaimed author of cult teen novel Grasshopper Jungle, Andrew Smith, comes a...
Atypical Plays for Atypical Actors
Book
Although disabled characters appear often in plays within the Western theatrical tradition, seldom...
Duchess of Malfi, the White Devil, the Broken Heart and 'Tis Pity She's a Whore
John Ford, John Webster and Jane Kingsley-Smith
6.5
Rate It
Book
These four plays, written during the reigns of James I and Charles I, took revenge tragedy in dark...
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Of Thorns and Beauty in Books
Dec 29, 2020
Never has a retelling been so close but so unimaginabley far away from the original fairytale. Of Thorns and Beauty is a New Adult masterpiece which will reel you in from its first pages and not let you go until its cruel cliffhanger.
A quick note that this is definitely a New Adult novel. Although not written about in detail this take includes the subjects of abuse, murder and rape as well as a bucket load of sexual tension.
This retelling of Beauty and the Beast is written solely from the perspective of our protagonist-the beauty Zaina. Forced into an arranged marriage with the renowned beast King Einar and denied any companions to accompany her, Zaina enters the "Beast's" castle entirely on her guard and unaware as to what sort of a life lays before her.
It quickly becomes apparent that Zaina's beauty has only ever caused pain and hardship for her in the past. As a result of this, she is a far cry from the bookish village girl seeking an adventure in the great wide somewhere. Zaina is fiery, sarcastic, dangerous and her prickly, defensive demeanour makes her few friends in her new home.
The use of a first person perspective with a protagonist such as Zaina really brings this novel to life. Zaina is such a damaged character and the reader is drip fed memories so partially and so slowly that we still don't know the extent of her suffering once the book has ended.
The style of writing also allows us to share Zaina's frustration at attempting to read her husband Einar's emotions: quite ironic for someone so closed off herself. The reader does not always feel empathy though: Zaina's defences are so high that she shuns any attempt at friendship; sometimes you just want to shake her!
Elements of the original beauty and the beast tale remain: there is indeed a curse, a rose and a forbidden west wing. However, these are so cleverly twisted that the reader will finish this book with an entirely different concept of who the Beast really is.
The fact that the authors themselves apologise for the cliffhanger, explaining that the characters and storyline just required more pages and more time, shows the sheer commitment to world building and character development.
Madison and Mahle introduce us to a whole new world of scenery and creatures; they pull us into the painful past of both main characters; place slimy villains in the shadows and raise our hopes of romance before throwing them off a cliff. This book is impossible to put down and I cannot wait to see what happens next.
Thank you to Booksirens for the opportunity to read a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
A quick note that this is definitely a New Adult novel. Although not written about in detail this take includes the subjects of abuse, murder and rape as well as a bucket load of sexual tension.
This retelling of Beauty and the Beast is written solely from the perspective of our protagonist-the beauty Zaina. Forced into an arranged marriage with the renowned beast King Einar and denied any companions to accompany her, Zaina enters the "Beast's" castle entirely on her guard and unaware as to what sort of a life lays before her.
It quickly becomes apparent that Zaina's beauty has only ever caused pain and hardship for her in the past. As a result of this, she is a far cry from the bookish village girl seeking an adventure in the great wide somewhere. Zaina is fiery, sarcastic, dangerous and her prickly, defensive demeanour makes her few friends in her new home.
The use of a first person perspective with a protagonist such as Zaina really brings this novel to life. Zaina is such a damaged character and the reader is drip fed memories so partially and so slowly that we still don't know the extent of her suffering once the book has ended.
The style of writing also allows us to share Zaina's frustration at attempting to read her husband Einar's emotions: quite ironic for someone so closed off herself. The reader does not always feel empathy though: Zaina's defences are so high that she shuns any attempt at friendship; sometimes you just want to shake her!
Elements of the original beauty and the beast tale remain: there is indeed a curse, a rose and a forbidden west wing. However, these are so cleverly twisted that the reader will finish this book with an entirely different concept of who the Beast really is.
The fact that the authors themselves apologise for the cliffhanger, explaining that the characters and storyline just required more pages and more time, shows the sheer commitment to world building and character development.
Madison and Mahle introduce us to a whole new world of scenery and creatures; they pull us into the painful past of both main characters; place slimy villains in the shadows and raise our hopes of romance before throwing them off a cliff. This book is impossible to put down and I cannot wait to see what happens next.
Thank you to Booksirens for the opportunity to read a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Erika (17789 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
May 23, 2021 (Updated May 23, 2021)
Guy Ritchie’s newest film, Wrath of Man, is based upon a French film called le Convoyeur, or ‘Cash Truck’. It’s one of the first ‘big’ films that’s only been released in theaters here in the US.
The film was broken into chapters, with different timelines. The opening scene is a violent armored truck robbery, which set an interesting fast-paced tone right off the bat. For me, that pace didn’t stick.
Jason Statham’s character, Hill, or ‘H’ is introduced on his first day working at the same armored truck company a few months later. It’s obvious that Hill isn’t really his name, as he delays his response, and everything is not as it seems. He forms a bond, or something resembling a bond on the surface, with ‘Bullet’, who is his trainer and eventual partner. All the cash truck drivers had very odd nicknames, like Josh Hartnett’s character’s nickname was ‘Boy Sweat’. I don’t believe whatever inside joke it was referring to was ever explained. Of course, per usual, witty banter ensues, which was just kind of gross and crass. Apparently, all the other people in the theater, dudes, thought it was hilarious and it got some laughs. Of course, there was the obligatory ‘Mary Poppins’ comment concerning H’s English accent. I don’t understand why this keeps getting used, the only quip I have ever heard in real life by an American towards someone with an English accent is ‘Masterpiece Theater’.
The pace, as I said, slowed down, until the end of this ‘chapter’, when H stops his armored truck from being robbed by Post Malone. After he takes out all these robbers, he becomes a hero at the company. After a subsequent robbery, all H did was reveal his face, and bam, everyone scatters. Which was really kind of odd. I would have rather watched H tear through them like he did the first batch of robbers, but ok. Bullet then recites the jazzed-up title of this chapter, ‘He’s a dark {expletive] spirit’.
In the subsequent chapters, it becomes clear as to who H is, why the robbery at the beginning was featured, and who ends up being the rat.
Statham’s character in this film was the meanest and most ruthless character he’s ever played. Though, I’m pretty sure the movie could have used a lot more of his wrath. The other characters, portrayed by the likes of Hartnett, Holt McCallany, Andy Garcia, Rob Delany, Eddie Marsan, and Scott Eastwood, didn’t particularly stand out to me.
Overall, I was entertained during the film, I left feeling ambivalent. I think that it just wasn’t enough, maybe there needed to be more violence and more wrath. It almost needed to be more extreme, because in the end, it was neither here nor there.
The film was broken into chapters, with different timelines. The opening scene is a violent armored truck robbery, which set an interesting fast-paced tone right off the bat. For me, that pace didn’t stick.
Jason Statham’s character, Hill, or ‘H’ is introduced on his first day working at the same armored truck company a few months later. It’s obvious that Hill isn’t really his name, as he delays his response, and everything is not as it seems. He forms a bond, or something resembling a bond on the surface, with ‘Bullet’, who is his trainer and eventual partner. All the cash truck drivers had very odd nicknames, like Josh Hartnett’s character’s nickname was ‘Boy Sweat’. I don’t believe whatever inside joke it was referring to was ever explained. Of course, per usual, witty banter ensues, which was just kind of gross and crass. Apparently, all the other people in the theater, dudes, thought it was hilarious and it got some laughs. Of course, there was the obligatory ‘Mary Poppins’ comment concerning H’s English accent. I don’t understand why this keeps getting used, the only quip I have ever heard in real life by an American towards someone with an English accent is ‘Masterpiece Theater’.
The pace, as I said, slowed down, until the end of this ‘chapter’, when H stops his armored truck from being robbed by Post Malone. After he takes out all these robbers, he becomes a hero at the company. After a subsequent robbery, all H did was reveal his face, and bam, everyone scatters. Which was really kind of odd. I would have rather watched H tear through them like he did the first batch of robbers, but ok. Bullet then recites the jazzed-up title of this chapter, ‘He’s a dark {expletive] spirit’.
In the subsequent chapters, it becomes clear as to who H is, why the robbery at the beginning was featured, and who ends up being the rat.
Statham’s character in this film was the meanest and most ruthless character he’s ever played. Though, I’m pretty sure the movie could have used a lot more of his wrath. The other characters, portrayed by the likes of Hartnett, Holt McCallany, Andy Garcia, Rob Delany, Eddie Marsan, and Scott Eastwood, didn’t particularly stand out to me.
Overall, I was entertained during the film, I left feeling ambivalent. I think that it just wasn’t enough, maybe there needed to be more violence and more wrath. It almost needed to be more extreme, because in the end, it was neither here nor there.