Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated How Wendy Redbird Dancing Survived the Dark Ages of Nought in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
When I came across this book on Goodreads, there was something about the blurb that made me want to read it, so when I got asked if I'd like to review it, I said yes instantly. While the first half of the book was a bit hit and miss, the second half really became interesting!
The title is a bit of a mouthful although interesting. I had a hard time remembering what the book was called due to the long name. Eventually, I memorized it, but I would still double check just to make sure I was right.
The cover might be a bit plain, but I think it suits this book perfectly! After the terrible incident that happens to Wendy, she kind of goes inside herself. I think this cover definitely captures that.
What bothered me a bit with the world building was I just felt like the school Wendy attended was racism central. I know that racism is a huge problem is some places, but it just felt a bit over the top in the beginning of the book. Luckily, about a third of the book in, the over the top racism thing stops, and the world building becomes more believable.
The pacing is fairly slow to begin with. However, about a little before halfway in, the pacing speeds up, and it quickly held my attention for the rest of the book. In fact, I couldn't put the book done after that! So if you start off a bit bored with the book, please do continue reading or you'll out miss out on a really good story.
The plot is interesting enough. It deals with racism, being an outcast, sexual abuse, and an emotionally distant mother as well as some other issues. I thought it was an original idea to use Michael Jackson as a teen girl's saint. I love the references to some artists of old.
The characters were written really well. Wendy, aside from her obsession with the king of pop, is just your average teenage girl. Her goal is to see Michael Jackson in concert in London. Wendy is definitely easy to relate to. Shaye comes across as being very cool and charismatic. He's instantly likable. I felt bad that I had ever liked him though after what he did to Wendy. My favorite character was Tanay though. I loved her attitude as well as her sass. She's super funny, yet she's a friend who's got your back. I think teenage girls will have an easy time relating to Wendy and/or Tanay.
The dialogue, for the most part, runs smoothly. However, at the beginning of the book, it does feel a little bit forced especially when it focuses on racism a little too heavily, at least I thought so. Some may get offended with the racism being used, but I didn't feel like the book itself was racist. I just felt that there was too much focus on how segregated Wendy's school is and how much racism (against all colors) there is in that school. Other than that, everything is smooth sailing. The character interactions feel normal, and the dialogue goes well with what a teen book should read like. There is some cussing in this book as well as some sexual situations, so I wouldn't recommend this book to younger teens.
Overall, How Wendy Redbird Dancing Survived the Dark Ages of Nought is a very intriguing book. The issues it deals with are issues that have plagued teens as well as adults for awhile. Hawks does a fantastic job of writing about this issues.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who want to read something a little more realistic than normal fiction with characters of whom are easy to relate to.
I'd give How Wendy Redbird Dancing Survived the Dark Ages of Nought by Lyn Fairchild Hawks a 3.75 out of 5.
(I received a free paperback of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
When I came across this book on Goodreads, there was something about the blurb that made me want to read it, so when I got asked if I'd like to review it, I said yes instantly. While the first half of the book was a bit hit and miss, the second half really became interesting!
The title is a bit of a mouthful although interesting. I had a hard time remembering what the book was called due to the long name. Eventually, I memorized it, but I would still double check just to make sure I was right.
The cover might be a bit plain, but I think it suits this book perfectly! After the terrible incident that happens to Wendy, she kind of goes inside herself. I think this cover definitely captures that.
What bothered me a bit with the world building was I just felt like the school Wendy attended was racism central. I know that racism is a huge problem is some places, but it just felt a bit over the top in the beginning of the book. Luckily, about a third of the book in, the over the top racism thing stops, and the world building becomes more believable.
The pacing is fairly slow to begin with. However, about a little before halfway in, the pacing speeds up, and it quickly held my attention for the rest of the book. In fact, I couldn't put the book done after that! So if you start off a bit bored with the book, please do continue reading or you'll out miss out on a really good story.
The plot is interesting enough. It deals with racism, being an outcast, sexual abuse, and an emotionally distant mother as well as some other issues. I thought it was an original idea to use Michael Jackson as a teen girl's saint. I love the references to some artists of old.
The characters were written really well. Wendy, aside from her obsession with the king of pop, is just your average teenage girl. Her goal is to see Michael Jackson in concert in London. Wendy is definitely easy to relate to. Shaye comes across as being very cool and charismatic. He's instantly likable. I felt bad that I had ever liked him though after what he did to Wendy. My favorite character was Tanay though. I loved her attitude as well as her sass. She's super funny, yet she's a friend who's got your back. I think teenage girls will have an easy time relating to Wendy and/or Tanay.
The dialogue, for the most part, runs smoothly. However, at the beginning of the book, it does feel a little bit forced especially when it focuses on racism a little too heavily, at least I thought so. Some may get offended with the racism being used, but I didn't feel like the book itself was racist. I just felt that there was too much focus on how segregated Wendy's school is and how much racism (against all colors) there is in that school. Other than that, everything is smooth sailing. The character interactions feel normal, and the dialogue goes well with what a teen book should read like. There is some cussing in this book as well as some sexual situations, so I wouldn't recommend this book to younger teens.
Overall, How Wendy Redbird Dancing Survived the Dark Ages of Nought is a very intriguing book. The issues it deals with are issues that have plagued teens as well as adults for awhile. Hawks does a fantastic job of writing about this issues.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who want to read something a little more realistic than normal fiction with characters of whom are easy to relate to.
I'd give How Wendy Redbird Dancing Survived the Dark Ages of Nought by Lyn Fairchild Hawks a 3.75 out of 5.
(I received a free paperback of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Mar 5, 2018
Epic
There is so much to love about Black Panther that it's taken me awhile to figure out where to begin. I guess I'll start with the message. A message that leaves us with two options: We can all spend the rest of our lives hating each other or we can choose to work together. That's not just a message for black people, which the cast predominately represents, but a message for the human race.
The film would be nothing without the powerful cast surrounding it. Their performances were both memorable and deep. I could spend this entire review going into depth on the effect of each actor/actresses performance on the film, but instead I want to take a moment to recognize one particular actress who has been in the game for decades: Angela Bassett. She absolutely nails the role of Queen mother Ramonda. Because the other roles are so strong, her performance may go unnoticed but not by me. She's a picture of calm, always displaying the perfect amount of strength in her position of power. Her vulnerability doesn't diminish her role of power in this matriarchal society.
Critics and fans alike have been complaining about one-dimensional villains for years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. You won't find that in Black Panther as Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is extremely well-developed. The best villains make you sensitive to their plight. Not only did I understand where Killmonger was coming from, there were plenty of moments where I wondered whether or not he was wrong.
As much as the film creates a strong feeling of black empowerment, Black Panther creates a strong sense of women's empowerment as well. The Wakandan tribes revolve around a king, yet the society would be nothing without the strong matriarchal figures that keep things running smoothly. There is a scene in the beginning of the film where N'Jobu (Sterling K. Brown) is discussing underdealings in his apartment when there is a knock at his door. When asked if he should open the door, he responds, "They won't ask twice." You can read the fear in his eyes as he understands the power of the women waiting behind that door. The more of the film you watch, the more you understand the justification behind that fear.
The conflict in the film wasn't created, but happened naturally as a result of flawed characters with depth and strong minds. W'Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) loves his people but has a heart for vengeance which begins to consume him. His story is just one of many revolving pieces that provide layers to the story.
The set pieces throughout the film were absolutely stunning. From its beautiful waterfall overlooks to the wintery mountains of the Jabari Tribe, you can't help but feel the magic in this place. The casino set piece was easily my favorite, a location that's seedy on the outside yet full of glamour and ritz within.
Now for my one minor gripe: I can't go into detail without ruining the film for those that haven't seen it, but there was one particular relationship that I felt should have been fleshed out a bit more, especially since it impacted the tide of the movie as a whole. The original cut of this film is four hours long and I've read that my issue is a non-issue in that version so I won't deduct too much. Not to mention, there are so many moments that they got right, particularly in the action front, that it's hard being too picky. Even the fight scenes and sprawling battles (rhinos in vibranium armor? Yes, please!) are original, breathing fresh life into the MCU the same way Doctor Strange did.
At the heart of everything, Black Panther is shaped by memorable, powerful moments that impact the way you look at the movie. Killmonger's dream sequence is probably the most powerful scene in an MCU movie yet, just edging out the final confrontation between Vision and Ultron in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The film is a double threat as it not only packs a strong action punch, but an introspective one as well.
Wakanda is crowning a new king, but there is one who would oppose the throne for reasons of his own. One, coincidentally, is the same amount of points that I deducted from my rating. Just amazing, Black Panther gets a 99 from me.
The film would be nothing without the powerful cast surrounding it. Their performances were both memorable and deep. I could spend this entire review going into depth on the effect of each actor/actresses performance on the film, but instead I want to take a moment to recognize one particular actress who has been in the game for decades: Angela Bassett. She absolutely nails the role of Queen mother Ramonda. Because the other roles are so strong, her performance may go unnoticed but not by me. She's a picture of calm, always displaying the perfect amount of strength in her position of power. Her vulnerability doesn't diminish her role of power in this matriarchal society.
Critics and fans alike have been complaining about one-dimensional villains for years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. You won't find that in Black Panther as Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is extremely well-developed. The best villains make you sensitive to their plight. Not only did I understand where Killmonger was coming from, there were plenty of moments where I wondered whether or not he was wrong.
As much as the film creates a strong feeling of black empowerment, Black Panther creates a strong sense of women's empowerment as well. The Wakandan tribes revolve around a king, yet the society would be nothing without the strong matriarchal figures that keep things running smoothly. There is a scene in the beginning of the film where N'Jobu (Sterling K. Brown) is discussing underdealings in his apartment when there is a knock at his door. When asked if he should open the door, he responds, "They won't ask twice." You can read the fear in his eyes as he understands the power of the women waiting behind that door. The more of the film you watch, the more you understand the justification behind that fear.
The conflict in the film wasn't created, but happened naturally as a result of flawed characters with depth and strong minds. W'Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) loves his people but has a heart for vengeance which begins to consume him. His story is just one of many revolving pieces that provide layers to the story.
The set pieces throughout the film were absolutely stunning. From its beautiful waterfall overlooks to the wintery mountains of the Jabari Tribe, you can't help but feel the magic in this place. The casino set piece was easily my favorite, a location that's seedy on the outside yet full of glamour and ritz within.
Now for my one minor gripe: I can't go into detail without ruining the film for those that haven't seen it, but there was one particular relationship that I felt should have been fleshed out a bit more, especially since it impacted the tide of the movie as a whole. The original cut of this film is four hours long and I've read that my issue is a non-issue in that version so I won't deduct too much. Not to mention, there are so many moments that they got right, particularly in the action front, that it's hard being too picky. Even the fight scenes and sprawling battles (rhinos in vibranium armor? Yes, please!) are original, breathing fresh life into the MCU the same way Doctor Strange did.
At the heart of everything, Black Panther is shaped by memorable, powerful moments that impact the way you look at the movie. Killmonger's dream sequence is probably the most powerful scene in an MCU movie yet, just edging out the final confrontation between Vision and Ultron in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The film is a double threat as it not only packs a strong action punch, but an introspective one as well.
Wakanda is crowning a new king, but there is one who would oppose the throne for reasons of his own. One, coincidentally, is the same amount of points that I deducted from my rating. Just amazing, Black Panther gets a 99 from me.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Mar 31, 2019
It's set to be a busy year for live action Disney remakes, with Aladdin and The Lion King already lined up for release this year. Kicking things off though, is this reimagining of the 1941 classic Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Miss Congeniality 2 - Armed and Fabulous (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
As the weather starts to warm, indicating the coming spring and summer seasons, scores of sequels arrive at local box offices. Sequels have always been desired by Hollywood because, thanks in part to the success of previous titles in the series, a built in audience helps assure big openings.
With the Ring 2 kicking off the sequel frenzy to solid numbers this year, Warner Bros. is hoping to cash in on the success of the Sandra Bullock hit Miss Congeniality, with the release of Miss Congeniality 2 :Armed and Fabulous.
The film opens a few weeks after the events of the first film and underscores agent Gracie Hart’s struggles to get back into field work now that she’s a celebrity. When an undercover operation goes sour in part to Gracie’s new found notoriety, it is decided that she will be removed from field work and placed as the new face of the F.B.I. in an effort to increase public image. Assigned to watch her back, Gracie is partnered with a no-nonsense agent named Sam Fuller (Regina King), who has severe attitude issues and is less than thrilled to watch over Gracie especially when Gracie has become a diva thanks to her new found celebrity and numerous appearances on talk shows.
When the current Miss America, and good friend, Cheryl (Heather Burns) is kidnapped along with pageant host Stan Fields (William Shatner), Gracie sets off to Vegas in an effort to help with the case. Her notoriety and unorthodox tactics runs afoul of the local agent in charge Collins (Treat Williams), who wants nothing more than for Gracie to head back to New York and make his life easier.
While the film does have an interesting setup, it soon becomes an overlong sketch comedy as Gracie and Sam show up in costumes ranging from an old Jewish retiree to Tina Turner, with sadly very few laughs in between. I was a big fan of the first film but this effort seems like a project that was created simply to cash in on the success of the first without offering anything new.
The charm and wit of the first film are sadly missed, as this film just plods along without any real payoff. Bullock seems to be walking through her part without the sparkle and shine that made her the beloved girl next door. Fuller seems to have only two emotions and that is pure rage or exasperation. The rest of the cast does not fare much better as Shatner is forced to vamp it up with very little to work with. Only Diedrich Bader gets some laughs albeit cheaply playing the over the top flamboyant fashion consultant named Joel.
Michael Caine and Benjamin Bratt are noticeably absent from this sequel. It seems that they wisely decided to stay clear of this clunker. I had hoped that this film would recapture some of the charm of the original but it plays out as an uninspired effort that seems to have had very little care put into it. My advice, save this for a rental.
With the Ring 2 kicking off the sequel frenzy to solid numbers this year, Warner Bros. is hoping to cash in on the success of the Sandra Bullock hit Miss Congeniality, with the release of Miss Congeniality 2 :Armed and Fabulous.
The film opens a few weeks after the events of the first film and underscores agent Gracie Hart’s struggles to get back into field work now that she’s a celebrity. When an undercover operation goes sour in part to Gracie’s new found notoriety, it is decided that she will be removed from field work and placed as the new face of the F.B.I. in an effort to increase public image. Assigned to watch her back, Gracie is partnered with a no-nonsense agent named Sam Fuller (Regina King), who has severe attitude issues and is less than thrilled to watch over Gracie especially when Gracie has become a diva thanks to her new found celebrity and numerous appearances on talk shows.
When the current Miss America, and good friend, Cheryl (Heather Burns) is kidnapped along with pageant host Stan Fields (William Shatner), Gracie sets off to Vegas in an effort to help with the case. Her notoriety and unorthodox tactics runs afoul of the local agent in charge Collins (Treat Williams), who wants nothing more than for Gracie to head back to New York and make his life easier.
While the film does have an interesting setup, it soon becomes an overlong sketch comedy as Gracie and Sam show up in costumes ranging from an old Jewish retiree to Tina Turner, with sadly very few laughs in between. I was a big fan of the first film but this effort seems like a project that was created simply to cash in on the success of the first without offering anything new.
The charm and wit of the first film are sadly missed, as this film just plods along without any real payoff. Bullock seems to be walking through her part without the sparkle and shine that made her the beloved girl next door. Fuller seems to have only two emotions and that is pure rage or exasperation. The rest of the cast does not fare much better as Shatner is forced to vamp it up with very little to work with. Only Diedrich Bader gets some laughs albeit cheaply playing the over the top flamboyant fashion consultant named Joel.
Michael Caine and Benjamin Bratt are noticeably absent from this sequel. It seems that they wisely decided to stay clear of this clunker. I had hoped that this film would recapture some of the charm of the original but it plays out as an uninspired effort that seems to have had very little care put into it. My advice, save this for a rental.
The first half of The Serpent and the Moon mainly deals with Francois I's reign as king and has little to do with the love triangle. Frankly, the whole book itself hasn't much to do with the love triangle or "one of the great love stories of all time," but more to do with the political intrigue of Henri I and his father's reigns. Oh, and lest I forget, Henri, Diane, and both of their symbols, monograms, etc. I honestly don't know what the whole fascination of that was all about, but it showed up everywhere.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019
In a word...bland
There are many words that you can use to describe films by Tim Burton: Gothic, Bizarre, Dark, Interesting, SteamPunk, Unique, Visual.
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Feb 16, 2023
Life for Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is good. He is basking in the recognition
and fame that has come with his work with the Avengers and saving half the
universe from Thanos and has even become a best-selling author.
He has a successful relationship with Hope (Evangeline Lilly) who has
taken her father’s company to new heights and they have managed to blend
their personal and professional lives and enjoy a very happy life.
Scott does worry about his daughter Cassie (Kathryn Newton) as he lost
several years with her during the Blip and she is an activist who has been
arrested for her efforts including a hysterical prank on the police with
Pym technology.
Cassie is constantly on her father for not doing more as she feels that he
is more focused on the past battles with the Avengers and not the day to
day struggles people are facing. Over dinner, she tells Hope and her dad as
well as Hank (Michael Douglas), and Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer), whom she
studied Hank’s journals while they were in the Blip and has developed a
Quantum beacon which can map the Quantum Realm without having to venture
to the sub-atomic relay where until recently nobody had been able to
return from.
This news sends Janet into a panic during a demonstration and the four are
soon sucked into the realm and discover a diverse and thriving ecosystem
as well as an abundance of strange and dangerous creatures.
Janet is clearly hiding something and is frantic that they must leave but
their party has been scattered and they soon learn that she fears and
individual known as Kang (Jonathan Majors).
While she was trapped in the realm for thirty years, Janet encountered
King and helped him regain his power source but in doing so, learned he
was a banished conquerer who can manipulate time, space, and the
multiverse.
Her actions to trap Kang and lead a resistance to the vast empire he
created has set the stage as Janet has now returned to see what has
developed and Kang will stop at nothing to regain his power source to
escape and wreck his wrath on trillions.
Naturally, it is up to Scott, Hope, and the team to find a way to fight the
evil and powerful Kang to save the day.
The film is a darker tale than people might expect from an Ant-man movie
but in kicking off Phase 5 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the movie is
a visual splendor filled with amazing visuals, landscapes, and characters.
The film takes a bit of time to get to the action but when it arrives it
delivers and the performance of Majors as Kang is captivating it will
be interesting to see where the storyline evolves over the next series of
films leading up to “The Avengers: The Kang Dynasty” and beyond.
“Ant-man and the Wasp: Quantumania may not break loads of new ground in
terms of a Marvel film but Director Peyton Reed knows the characters well
and delivers a story that should resonate with the fans and the strong
cast and addition of Majors along with the great visuals make this
another winner for Marvel.
4 stars out of 5
and fame that has come with his work with the Avengers and saving half the
universe from Thanos and has even become a best-selling author.
He has a successful relationship with Hope (Evangeline Lilly) who has
taken her father’s company to new heights and they have managed to blend
their personal and professional lives and enjoy a very happy life.
Scott does worry about his daughter Cassie (Kathryn Newton) as he lost
several years with her during the Blip and she is an activist who has been
arrested for her efforts including a hysterical prank on the police with
Pym technology.
Cassie is constantly on her father for not doing more as she feels that he
is more focused on the past battles with the Avengers and not the day to
day struggles people are facing. Over dinner, she tells Hope and her dad as
well as Hank (Michael Douglas), and Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer), whom she
studied Hank’s journals while they were in the Blip and has developed a
Quantum beacon which can map the Quantum Realm without having to venture
to the sub-atomic relay where until recently nobody had been able to
return from.
This news sends Janet into a panic during a demonstration and the four are
soon sucked into the realm and discover a diverse and thriving ecosystem
as well as an abundance of strange and dangerous creatures.
Janet is clearly hiding something and is frantic that they must leave but
their party has been scattered and they soon learn that she fears and
individual known as Kang (Jonathan Majors).
While she was trapped in the realm for thirty years, Janet encountered
King and helped him regain his power source but in doing so, learned he
was a banished conquerer who can manipulate time, space, and the
multiverse.
Her actions to trap Kang and lead a resistance to the vast empire he
created has set the stage as Janet has now returned to see what has
developed and Kang will stop at nothing to regain his power source to
escape and wreck his wrath on trillions.
Naturally, it is up to Scott, Hope, and the team to find a way to fight the
evil and powerful Kang to save the day.
The film is a darker tale than people might expect from an Ant-man movie
but in kicking off Phase 5 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the movie is
a visual splendor filled with amazing visuals, landscapes, and characters.
The film takes a bit of time to get to the action but when it arrives it
delivers and the performance of Majors as Kang is captivating it will
be interesting to see where the storyline evolves over the next series of
films leading up to “The Avengers: The Kang Dynasty” and beyond.
“Ant-man and the Wasp: Quantumania may not break loads of new ground in
terms of a Marvel film but Director Peyton Reed knows the characters well
and delivers a story that should resonate with the fans and the strong
cast and addition of Majors along with the great visuals make this
another winner for Marvel.
4 stars out of 5
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
May 11, 2019
"Bury me in the ocean with my ancestors who jumped from the ships, 'cause they knew death was better than bondage"
Full of life, joy, sorrow, and hilarity; Ryan Coogler's Black Panther just has a vibrancy you rarely find in the superhero scene, let alone blockbusters. Enriched with a deep, abiding love for African culture and Afrofuturism; the movie just feels purposeful. Important. Meaningful. Context matters here, as Black Panther will become one of very few films populated by African Americans not dealing with slavery or black history to thrive financially. And that cast is phenomenal. Boseman's soft-spoken panther-of-few-words is the rare MCUer to opt for a moment of silence rather than a snarky comment. Michael B Jordan brings an unmistakable swagger to the perpetually weak slate of Marvel villains, conveying a crushingly sad and challenging story that could just as easily be regarded as the true hero of the film. Letitia Wright as the genius tech maestro was a blast, a character who could give Tony Stark a run for his money both technologically and charismatically. And these are just three of Coogler's creations; drawn from a slate of inspired, unique and wonderfully represented roles for black actors...many of whom will deservingly use this as a career springboard of sorts.
I remember years ago I read a book about the cultural significance of various comic book locales, and the Wakanda entry struck me as uniquely sad and inspiring. Wakanda, a place busting with innovation, tradition, and pride...hidden from the world. Sort of an alternate-timeline Africa which wasn't poisoned irreparably by colonialism and all its horrors. There's a sad duality obvious in this Wakanda, that being for it to exist, it must be hidden. Must be quietly nurtured, developed and treasured. It's an apt metaphor in relation to black pride, culture, and history; something constantly being reworked, reshaped and reimagined to put a sordid past (and present) in the rear-view mirror by those who perpetrate it, knowingly or not. This idea, that for something to thrive it must be isolated, is at the heart of Black Panther. You can understand why T'Challa, and generations before him, sacrificed anything to preserve the myth of Wakanda. But you can also understand Killmonger's feeling of betrayal. The profound moral objections inherent in a small community turning it's back on a larger suffering population in the name of self-preservation. There's no heroes and villains when Black Panther is at it's best, just two sides to a terrifying moral question *loaded* with historical weight.
Because Killmonger isn't really a villain. The best illustration of this is the contrasting "dream" sequences, in which T'Challa shares a promise with his father within a transcendentally beautiful African landscape, and Killmonger is confronted by all his pain, suffering and moral rigidity in the vast concrete jungle of Oakland, in the tiny apartment where his father was murdered for trying to make a difference. They both wake up with tears in their eyes, some from pain and some from catharsis. Coogler marks the chasm between T'Challa's and Killmonger's pasts so perfectly, and illustrates exactly why they feel the way they do with such wisdom. Black Panther so clearly empathizes with Killmonger and understands where his pain was born, and the horrors that nurtured it.
And so there's no hero and no villain to this movie. Just two men in nearly identical black panther suits, clashing over how Wakanda ought to venture into a new era. Nobility and passion, conservation and sacrifice, incremental change against a vengeful redistribution of power and oppression. Both men are correct in their aspirations, being "right" here doesn't matter. it's tough for a good man to be king. Killmonger made T'Challa the hero he is, by instilling in him a mission, a perceived duty to turn around, face an oppressed people and finally lend a hand. But more than that, there's something miraculous here. An apology from a good man. A recognition of a sin even when it's perpetrator was, until now, helpless to prevent it. A declaration that not contributing to hate and prejudice doesn't equate to actively working to prevent it. A plea for a humble brand of superheroism, for countless ghosts of the past to be heard and change to erupt in their name. Divides to be bridged, chasms to be crossed and wrongs to be righted.
Black Panther has a complex, meaningful and profoundly challenging thematic framework; offering a fresh dissection of what it means to grapple with the sins of those who came before. Sure, there are some technical issues along the way, the machinations of Marvel storytelling are evident and errors could be found; but if you understand that superhero stories were meant to ask these sorts of questions and push boundaries since their inception; Black Panther is a dream.
I remember years ago I read a book about the cultural significance of various comic book locales, and the Wakanda entry struck me as uniquely sad and inspiring. Wakanda, a place busting with innovation, tradition, and pride...hidden from the world. Sort of an alternate-timeline Africa which wasn't poisoned irreparably by colonialism and all its horrors. There's a sad duality obvious in this Wakanda, that being for it to exist, it must be hidden. Must be quietly nurtured, developed and treasured. It's an apt metaphor in relation to black pride, culture, and history; something constantly being reworked, reshaped and reimagined to put a sordid past (and present) in the rear-view mirror by those who perpetrate it, knowingly or not. This idea, that for something to thrive it must be isolated, is at the heart of Black Panther. You can understand why T'Challa, and generations before him, sacrificed anything to preserve the myth of Wakanda. But you can also understand Killmonger's feeling of betrayal. The profound moral objections inherent in a small community turning it's back on a larger suffering population in the name of self-preservation. There's no heroes and villains when Black Panther is at it's best, just two sides to a terrifying moral question *loaded* with historical weight.
Because Killmonger isn't really a villain. The best illustration of this is the contrasting "dream" sequences, in which T'Challa shares a promise with his father within a transcendentally beautiful African landscape, and Killmonger is confronted by all his pain, suffering and moral rigidity in the vast concrete jungle of Oakland, in the tiny apartment where his father was murdered for trying to make a difference. They both wake up with tears in their eyes, some from pain and some from catharsis. Coogler marks the chasm between T'Challa's and Killmonger's pasts so perfectly, and illustrates exactly why they feel the way they do with such wisdom. Black Panther so clearly empathizes with Killmonger and understands where his pain was born, and the horrors that nurtured it.
And so there's no hero and no villain to this movie. Just two men in nearly identical black panther suits, clashing over how Wakanda ought to venture into a new era. Nobility and passion, conservation and sacrifice, incremental change against a vengeful redistribution of power and oppression. Both men are correct in their aspirations, being "right" here doesn't matter. it's tough for a good man to be king. Killmonger made T'Challa the hero he is, by instilling in him a mission, a perceived duty to turn around, face an oppressed people and finally lend a hand. But more than that, there's something miraculous here. An apology from a good man. A recognition of a sin even when it's perpetrator was, until now, helpless to prevent it. A declaration that not contributing to hate and prejudice doesn't equate to actively working to prevent it. A plea for a humble brand of superheroism, for countless ghosts of the past to be heard and change to erupt in their name. Divides to be bridged, chasms to be crossed and wrongs to be righted.
Black Panther has a complex, meaningful and profoundly challenging thematic framework; offering a fresh dissection of what it means to grapple with the sins of those who came before. Sure, there are some technical issues along the way, the machinations of Marvel storytelling are evident and errors could be found; but if you understand that superhero stories were meant to ask these sorts of questions and push boundaries since their inception; Black Panther is a dream.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018
Good start to the DARK KNIGHT trilogy
BATMAN BEGINS is a seminal film in the oeuvre of Christopher Nolan for a variety of reasons. Certainly, it became his biggest Box Office success to date and marked him as an "A" list Director. Also, you start seeing the recurring actors that I call "the Nolan players" in his films - Michael Caine, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe. But, most importantly, BATMAN BEGINS starts showing the Hallmarks of what a "Christopher Nolan" film is.
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Zodiac in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also find my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/june-29th-2016
Firstly I'd like to thank Netgalley and Penguin UK - Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this book in an exchange for a review.
<b><i>"How much worse would the world be if everyone was colour-coded? If people thought they could tell someone's essence at a glance, and discrimination became purely thoughtless? … Maybe people wouldn't spend so much time making sure they acted, sounded and thought the same as their neighbours, if they weren't terrified of being mistaken for the wrong sign. Maybe they'd realise how arbitrary it truly was."</b></i>
This was such a tricky debut novel. The premise was incredibly unique and intriguing that it almost became difficult for the author to live up to the expectations of the plot. Not to say that all debut crime novels are crap but this was such a complex story that I think only really experienced writers like Stephen King or even Gillian Flynn could have shaped it into what it was supposed to be.
I was initially attracted to this book because of the front cover and because the idea of a society where you are segregated by your star sign is a really interesting and unique twist on a look at modern society. Plus I love a crime thriller and had read some good things about this already.
To my disappointment, I felt this started off really slow. I almost couldn’t get into it, but I decided to push myself to continue reading. Only at around 30 - 40% did I finally start to enjoy this. I think a big problem for me was the writing. I often found it a bit clunky and overly descriptive, plus a few spelling and grammar mistakes threw me off. <b>(I hope there's a lot of proofreading before this gets published!)</b>
Though the plot got better, more fast paced and more exciting I still found it difficult to like any of the characters. Burton was a little pretentious and overly insecure. Lindi was as useful as a medium. Mendez was a little bitch. Daniel was mopey and selfish. Cray was your typical dislikable teen gangster. Bram was needy and childish. Maria was supposed to be a kind character but all she did was resent her job and her life. Maybe I’m being a little harsh but I found it difficult to like or relate to any of them.
I felt there was a lot left unsaid when it came to the characters too. Like what happened between Burton and his wife? They were completely fine and loved up one minute and then the next he was saying <i>“he knew she was separating from his life”</i>, but why? Also after the whole Bram <i>thing</i>, he said <i>”Justice was coming for them all”</i> but again, when did that happen in the novel?
Unfortunately I predicted the twist before the 50% mark, I don’t think it was that hard to guess, so that took away some of the excitement of finding out what was going on and getting our killers motive. By the time we find out who our killer is and the Aries people are rising up it all got too confusing for me. There was too much going on in each scene that my mind couldn't focus on any of it!
I’ve given this 3 stars because there was a good story line there and at times some quite nice writing but it was a mediocre book in my mind, not particularly memorable.
On another note, the Ram Squad reminded me of the all the different gangs in Saints Row and the entire Ariesville had a very Gotham vibe to it.
Firstly I'd like to thank Netgalley and Penguin UK - Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this book in an exchange for a review.
<b><i>"How much worse would the world be if everyone was colour-coded? If people thought they could tell someone's essence at a glance, and discrimination became purely thoughtless? … Maybe people wouldn't spend so much time making sure they acted, sounded and thought the same as their neighbours, if they weren't terrified of being mistaken for the wrong sign. Maybe they'd realise how arbitrary it truly was."</b></i>
This was such a tricky debut novel. The premise was incredibly unique and intriguing that it almost became difficult for the author to live up to the expectations of the plot. Not to say that all debut crime novels are crap but this was such a complex story that I think only really experienced writers like Stephen King or even Gillian Flynn could have shaped it into what it was supposed to be.
I was initially attracted to this book because of the front cover and because the idea of a society where you are segregated by your star sign is a really interesting and unique twist on a look at modern society. Plus I love a crime thriller and had read some good things about this already.
To my disappointment, I felt this started off really slow. I almost couldn’t get into it, but I decided to push myself to continue reading. Only at around 30 - 40% did I finally start to enjoy this. I think a big problem for me was the writing. I often found it a bit clunky and overly descriptive, plus a few spelling and grammar mistakes threw me off. <b>(I hope there's a lot of proofreading before this gets published!)</b>
Though the plot got better, more fast paced and more exciting I still found it difficult to like any of the characters. Burton was a little pretentious and overly insecure. Lindi was as useful as a medium. Mendez was a little bitch. Daniel was mopey and selfish. Cray was your typical dislikable teen gangster. Bram was needy and childish. Maria was supposed to be a kind character but all she did was resent her job and her life. Maybe I’m being a little harsh but I found it difficult to like or relate to any of them.
I felt there was a lot left unsaid when it came to the characters too. Like what happened between Burton and his wife? They were completely fine and loved up one minute and then the next he was saying <i>“he knew she was separating from his life”</i>, but why? Also after the whole Bram <i>thing</i>, he said <i>”Justice was coming for them all”</i> but again, when did that happen in the novel?
Unfortunately I predicted the twist before the 50% mark, I don’t think it was that hard to guess, so that took away some of the excitement of finding out what was going on and getting our killers motive. By the time we find out who our killer is and the Aries people are rising up it all got too confusing for me. There was too much going on in each scene that my mind couldn't focus on any of it!
I’ve given this 3 stars because there was a good story line there and at times some quite nice writing but it was a mediocre book in my mind, not particularly memorable.
On another note, the Ram Squad reminded me of the all the different gangs in Saints Row and the entire Ariesville had a very Gotham vibe to it.