Search
Search results
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated The Master and Margarita in Books
Aug 9, 2019
Worth a read? Yes. Worth a reread? Maybe not.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Master and Magarita: Mikhail Bulgakov
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Knock Knock (2015) in Movies
Nov 2, 2017
The acting is just terrible (1 more)
The whole premise is just ridiculous
What the hell was Keanu thinking?
I came across this on Netflix last night and remembered seeing the trailer for it in the cinema at some point in the past. I vaguely remembered wanting to see it if I ever got the chance. What I definitely didn't remember is that the reason I probably never saw it was down to the sheer number of awful reviews it managed to receive. So, here's another one to add to them.
Keanu Reeves is an architect, living in an amazing house with a beautiful wife and two perfect kids. The movie opens by slowly panning through the house, showing us that on literally every single piece of available wall space there's a photo of the happy family. They just look so perfect and content together. Keanu wakes up in bed with his wife and the kids burst in to bring Keanu a father's day chocolate cake. They have some fun and he chases them away, pretending to be monster. Wow, they really are determined to drum home the fact that Keanu has this perfect family life, something he'd be pretty stupid to mess up! Already though, the acting is just awful - the whole setup feels forced, none of it feels natural at all. A crucial plot point that we do discover here though - Keanus character has not had much action in the sack recently...
His wife and kids head off to the beach for the weekend leaving Keanu to try and get on top of his workload, designing some buildings, listening to loud music and 3D printing his work. That is, until he's interrupted late at night by a couple of young girls knocking at his front door. It's raining hard and they claim that their taxi dropped them off for a party, but they think that they're in completely the wrong area. Keanu lets them in to check the party location on his iPad (their phones are soaking wet) while he calls them an Uber. They begin flirting with him, but he resists. He ends up putting their clothes in the tumble dryer, the flirting continues, he continues to resist. Until eventually.... well, lets just say that he more than makes up for the action in the sack he's been missing out on recently.
All I'll say is that things get more intense and more ridiculous after that as the girls stick around and make his life a living hell, despite his attempts to try and get rid of them. It's all really over the top and just plain stupid, but I just had to watch it right to the end to see what happens. One thing it definitely proved though - Keanu Reeves really should stick to just being John Wick. Or Ted "Theodore" Logan.
Keanu Reeves is an architect, living in an amazing house with a beautiful wife and two perfect kids. The movie opens by slowly panning through the house, showing us that on literally every single piece of available wall space there's a photo of the happy family. They just look so perfect and content together. Keanu wakes up in bed with his wife and the kids burst in to bring Keanu a father's day chocolate cake. They have some fun and he chases them away, pretending to be monster. Wow, they really are determined to drum home the fact that Keanu has this perfect family life, something he'd be pretty stupid to mess up! Already though, the acting is just awful - the whole setup feels forced, none of it feels natural at all. A crucial plot point that we do discover here though - Keanus character has not had much action in the sack recently...
His wife and kids head off to the beach for the weekend leaving Keanu to try and get on top of his workload, designing some buildings, listening to loud music and 3D printing his work. That is, until he's interrupted late at night by a couple of young girls knocking at his front door. It's raining hard and they claim that their taxi dropped them off for a party, but they think that they're in completely the wrong area. Keanu lets them in to check the party location on his iPad (their phones are soaking wet) while he calls them an Uber. They begin flirting with him, but he resists. He ends up putting their clothes in the tumble dryer, the flirting continues, he continues to resist. Until eventually.... well, lets just say that he more than makes up for the action in the sack he's been missing out on recently.
All I'll say is that things get more intense and more ridiculous after that as the girls stick around and make his life a living hell, despite his attempts to try and get rid of them. It's all really over the top and just plain stupid, but I just had to watch it right to the end to see what happens. One thing it definitely proved though - Keanu Reeves really should stick to just being John Wick. Or Ted "Theodore" Logan.
Jamie (131 KP) rated 1984 Nineteen Eighty-Four in Books
Jun 4, 2017
Overwhelmingly bleak (1 more)
Stars slow and a little bit didactic
A true nightmare world, a dystopian classic
Winston is our everyman, a middle aged average male living under the heel of a totalitarian regime. His work is bland, his food is bland, his every day routine is bland. Winston is losing it, he wonders about the world that was before the party and resists in small ways. He ponders about the subtle ways that the party exerts it’s control, by perpetual war, by rewriting history, by lying so blatantly that the members of the party have to accept the lies as truth. Winston dreams of revolution and finds himself seeking out others likes him.
Nineteen Eighty-Four was not an easy ready by any means, it’s startlingly brutal. The beginning starts off rather slow as the readers gets to know Winston, the way he thinks and learns about his every day routine and are introduced to key characters. The middle of the book picks up, but it breaks up the pacing of the novel due to the fact that it essentially turns into an essay that outlines the structure of the party and the moral implications of it’s actions. While info dumps can be a bit disjointing to read, I could bear with it for this novel. The third half of the novel caught me off guard and it spun wildly out of control. I loved it, even when I found it difficult to digest. This is what made the book so brilliant, it doesn’t just tell you about right and wrong and then wrap things up nicely, the horrible reality of the book comes crashing down on both Winston and the reader’s head in full force.
The power structure of the party is just downright diabolical. I could think of any other way to describe it; the method of control, the reasons for maintaining such a strict social order, the sheer scale of the party’s reach – all of it was terrifying when taken as a whole. There were points in the second half of the novel where I had to put the book down because it was stressing me out too much, and this was a first for me. I now understand fully what folks mean when they label something as “Orwellian,” and why this novel is hailed as one of the very best of the dystopia genre. Hell, there are others that I read that I thought were bleak, but none quite to this degree. Nineteen Eighty-Four makes other books in the dystopia genre seem like lighthearted adventures novels.
The novel is extremely effective in the delivery of it’s core message about government control and humanity by creating a potential future that is harrowing, particularly because of it’s plausibility, as a warning to all. This is the type of book that will stick with me for a long time and I’m glad I finally sat down to read it.
Nineteen Eighty-Four was not an easy ready by any means, it’s startlingly brutal. The beginning starts off rather slow as the readers gets to know Winston, the way he thinks and learns about his every day routine and are introduced to key characters. The middle of the book picks up, but it breaks up the pacing of the novel due to the fact that it essentially turns into an essay that outlines the structure of the party and the moral implications of it’s actions. While info dumps can be a bit disjointing to read, I could bear with it for this novel. The third half of the novel caught me off guard and it spun wildly out of control. I loved it, even when I found it difficult to digest. This is what made the book so brilliant, it doesn’t just tell you about right and wrong and then wrap things up nicely, the horrible reality of the book comes crashing down on both Winston and the reader’s head in full force.
The power structure of the party is just downright diabolical. I could think of any other way to describe it; the method of control, the reasons for maintaining such a strict social order, the sheer scale of the party’s reach – all of it was terrifying when taken as a whole. There were points in the second half of the novel where I had to put the book down because it was stressing me out too much, and this was a first for me. I now understand fully what folks mean when they label something as “Orwellian,” and why this novel is hailed as one of the very best of the dystopia genre. Hell, there are others that I read that I thought were bleak, but none quite to this degree. Nineteen Eighty-Four makes other books in the dystopia genre seem like lighthearted adventures novels.
The novel is extremely effective in the delivery of it’s core message about government control and humanity by creating a potential future that is harrowing, particularly because of it’s plausibility, as a warning to all. This is the type of book that will stick with me for a long time and I’m glad I finally sat down to read it.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Black Pirate (1926) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Two-tone Techncolor milestone
Two Tone Technicolor in all its glory! This is it. The first widely distributed Technicolor movie back before we even had sound. This was hardly the first foray into colour, in fact colour almost goes as far back as film itself, as does sound, but it was not until the mid-1920’s that breakthroughs in both mediums would bring them into mainstream.
Sound would take first, with Technicolor taking just a little longer, mainly due to the technical issues of using it both in front and behind the camera. But as time went on, these issues were gradually dealt with with the rest is cinema history.
So, having gotten the technical bit out of the way, on to the Douglas Fairbanks Jr. blockbuster. And that is precisely want this was. A by-the-numbers acrobatic action movie by the undisputed star of the day, Fairbanks.
The plot follows a Duke (Fairbanks) whose ship is attacked and destroyed by a Pirates. He is the soul survivor and vows revenge. He soon finds himself in the company of the very pirates he is looking for and infiltrates their crew by being the best god-damn pirate there ever was!
He meets a princess (Billie Dove) and saves the day, gets the girl and the evil pirates are dispatched. All, amidst lots of colourful blood, to emphasise the Technicolor I suppose and slides down a few sails with his dagger along the way.
The performances are typical for a Hollywoodland movie of the day, but besides the outstanding physicality of Douglas, I would not say that there was anything particularly noteworthy about the acting, let alone the production on the whole. Having said that, the tone and cliche’s which this film has brought to the genre as whole are legendary and there is that foray into colour of course.
This were it all began folks…
The DVD
Unfortunately my copy was just the cheap R-0 version, whcih was clearly (ironically) taken from a old VHS recording. The colour is vivid but wrong. Greens have replaced blacks and the overall print quality was poor but watchable. I have seen bit s of the KINO HD Blu-ray edition and this looks great.
It also has the original score by Mortimer Wilson, something whcih this bargain basement DVD does not. The music supplied is okay; a mix of classical pieces on a loop but none this is cued and rarely suits the scenes let alone the action on screen. Further proof that there never was such a thing as silent cinema, just no synchronised sound.
For the real experience, get the Blu-ray, though it is very expensive at the moment, but if you just want to see what all the fuss is about, this DVD is quite watchable, at least as an entry version.
Me, I am after the upgrade!
Sound would take first, with Technicolor taking just a little longer, mainly due to the technical issues of using it both in front and behind the camera. But as time went on, these issues were gradually dealt with with the rest is cinema history.
So, having gotten the technical bit out of the way, on to the Douglas Fairbanks Jr. blockbuster. And that is precisely want this was. A by-the-numbers acrobatic action movie by the undisputed star of the day, Fairbanks.
The plot follows a Duke (Fairbanks) whose ship is attacked and destroyed by a Pirates. He is the soul survivor and vows revenge. He soon finds himself in the company of the very pirates he is looking for and infiltrates their crew by being the best god-damn pirate there ever was!
He meets a princess (Billie Dove) and saves the day, gets the girl and the evil pirates are dispatched. All, amidst lots of colourful blood, to emphasise the Technicolor I suppose and slides down a few sails with his dagger along the way.
The performances are typical for a Hollywoodland movie of the day, but besides the outstanding physicality of Douglas, I would not say that there was anything particularly noteworthy about the acting, let alone the production on the whole. Having said that, the tone and cliche’s which this film has brought to the genre as whole are legendary and there is that foray into colour of course.
This were it all began folks…
The DVD
Unfortunately my copy was just the cheap R-0 version, whcih was clearly (ironically) taken from a old VHS recording. The colour is vivid but wrong. Greens have replaced blacks and the overall print quality was poor but watchable. I have seen bit s of the KINO HD Blu-ray edition and this looks great.
It also has the original score by Mortimer Wilson, something whcih this bargain basement DVD does not. The music supplied is okay; a mix of classical pieces on a loop but none this is cued and rarely suits the scenes let alone the action on screen. Further proof that there never was such a thing as silent cinema, just no synchronised sound.
For the real experience, get the Blu-ray, though it is very expensive at the moment, but if you just want to see what all the fuss is about, this DVD is quite watchable, at least as an entry version.
Me, I am after the upgrade!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Daddy's Home (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Lesson in beige comedy
We did it! After managing to get through the record-breaking year that was 2015, things in the film world shifted down a gear for 2016, well, for a month or so.
As we begin another promising year in the world of the silver screen, one of the first movies to garner the public’s attention is Daddy’s Home, but can this comedy with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell hold its own with the heavyweights in the genre?
Daddy’s Home has a simple premise, stepfather Brad (Ferrell) who lives and breathes for the adoration of his stepchildren feels threatened when their hunky, off-the-wall dad Dusty (Wahlberg) comes into town. That’s literally the plot, and this becomes the film’s major stumbling block.
Decent comedy films are ten-a-penny these days and over the last few years, director Paul Feig has charmed audiences across the globe with Bridesmaids, The Heat and the rib-achingly funny Spy. He is simply the guy everyone wants for comedy as every script that has his name attached turns to gold.
Daddy’s Home unfortunately lacks a cohesive and witty plot, instead opting for clichéd laughs that work the first few times, but fall flat afterwards. That’s not to say there isn’t anything clever here, in fact there is, but it’s in short supply.
The two lead actors are, as usual, dependable with Wahlberg being particularly memorable, not least because he spends the majority of the 96 minute running time with his shirt off, and Ferrell is a veteran in this genre, but the characters lack any real depth, and the obligatory moments were director Sean Anders wants us to feel something for the pair simply evaporate into thin air.
Elsewhere, Linda Cardellini provides a surprisingly phoned-in performance as Dusty’s ex-wife, Sara, with her two children, Megan and Dylan, played by Scarlett Estevez and Owen Vaccaro faring much better. Estevez in particular is a promising young actress.
Despite these glaring omissions, a brilliant sequence shot in a fertility clinic garners laughs from start to finish and Thomas Haden Church’s turn as Ferrell’s boss is a real joy to watch with some of the film’s best lines.
It just all lacks a little touch of Feig. There’s none of the satirical humour mixed with belly laughs that audiences come to expect in 21st Century comedy and it’s a real shame the two lead stars, heavily marketed as facing off against each other, don’t get to do more and go that bit further.
Overall, Daddy’s Home is a perfectly pleasant start to 2016. It’s no-where near the standards set by Bridesmaids or Spy, but does just about enough to warrant a watch. It’s just not as funny as its credentials would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/10/a-lesson-in-beige-comedy-daddys-home-review/
As we begin another promising year in the world of the silver screen, one of the first movies to garner the public’s attention is Daddy’s Home, but can this comedy with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell hold its own with the heavyweights in the genre?
Daddy’s Home has a simple premise, stepfather Brad (Ferrell) who lives and breathes for the adoration of his stepchildren feels threatened when their hunky, off-the-wall dad Dusty (Wahlberg) comes into town. That’s literally the plot, and this becomes the film’s major stumbling block.
Decent comedy films are ten-a-penny these days and over the last few years, director Paul Feig has charmed audiences across the globe with Bridesmaids, The Heat and the rib-achingly funny Spy. He is simply the guy everyone wants for comedy as every script that has his name attached turns to gold.
Daddy’s Home unfortunately lacks a cohesive and witty plot, instead opting for clichéd laughs that work the first few times, but fall flat afterwards. That’s not to say there isn’t anything clever here, in fact there is, but it’s in short supply.
The two lead actors are, as usual, dependable with Wahlberg being particularly memorable, not least because he spends the majority of the 96 minute running time with his shirt off, and Ferrell is a veteran in this genre, but the characters lack any real depth, and the obligatory moments were director Sean Anders wants us to feel something for the pair simply evaporate into thin air.
Elsewhere, Linda Cardellini provides a surprisingly phoned-in performance as Dusty’s ex-wife, Sara, with her two children, Megan and Dylan, played by Scarlett Estevez and Owen Vaccaro faring much better. Estevez in particular is a promising young actress.
Despite these glaring omissions, a brilliant sequence shot in a fertility clinic garners laughs from start to finish and Thomas Haden Church’s turn as Ferrell’s boss is a real joy to watch with some of the film’s best lines.
It just all lacks a little touch of Feig. There’s none of the satirical humour mixed with belly laughs that audiences come to expect in 21st Century comedy and it’s a real shame the two lead stars, heavily marketed as facing off against each other, don’t get to do more and go that bit further.
Overall, Daddy’s Home is a perfectly pleasant start to 2016. It’s no-where near the standards set by Bridesmaids or Spy, but does just about enough to warrant a watch. It’s just not as funny as its credentials would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/10/a-lesson-in-beige-comedy-daddys-home-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
An absolute snooze
Here comes yet another superhero film. Ending Marvel’s year that has included the charming Big Hero 6, the overstuffed Avengers: Age of Ultron and the surprisingly excellent Ant-Man, the Fox produced Fantastic Four reboot has a tough job trying to get audiences to forget the horror that came before it.
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated A Little Chaos (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Better suited to T.V.
From the mind of director Alan Rickman, everyone’s favourite Slytherin, A Little Chaos follows the story of a gardener as she tries to prove her worth, creating a fountain at the beautiful Gardens of Versailles. But does this historical drama have any depth?
Kate Winslet takes on the role of Sabine De Barra, a visionary landscape gardener who is tasked with creating the stunning piece of architecture in Versailles for King Louis XIV, portrayed by a typically on-point Rickman.
8379_poster_iphoneThe plot is stretched out into a film that lasts a little over two hours and despite some breath-taking scenery and excellent performances, A Little Chaos couldn’t be further removed from its title – in fact it’s all a little flat and Saturday night TV drama-esque.
A promising supporting cast that includes Stanley Tucci as Louis XIV’s gay brother and Matthias Schoenaerts, a former Cesar award-winner, as the king’s principal gardener, is wasted as the film spends much of its running time trying to tie together numerous loose ends, from a tragedy plot to a new-found romance.
Rickman’s direction is admirable and he certainly knows how to get the best out of his landscapes, but like the many shrubs in A Little Chaos, it all needed pruning back slightly more with at least 20 minutes of exposition being completely unnecessary.
Moreover, for a film that has its secondary focus on horticulture, there is very little in the way of gardening, and I for one was hoping for more beautiful shots of the stunning grounds rather than rain-soaked Winslet and admittedly impressive hair pieces.
Nevertheless, both Winslet and Rickman are superb in their roles and it’s nice to see the latter take on something a little less sinister after his well-received performances in the Harry Potter franchise and of course his brilliant turn in Die Hard.
The former is, alongside Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore, one of the most reliable actresses in cinema. Her performance here is excellent and through her tragic past, we see more to the character of Sabine the further we get into the picture.
It’s just a shame that none of it registers. After a disappointingly slow first half, things only moderately gain pace as the film
reaches its poorly CGI finished conclusion. Winslet’s character is given more depth than she needs and the audience faces the difficult task of dealing with numerous bits of information that don’t really come together.
Overall, Alan Rickman’s latest effort in the director’s chair lacks the magic and sparkle that he brings to his acting and despite mesmerising performances from Kate Winslet and Rickman himself, A Little Chaos is more at home on the small screen, rather than the big.
After all, if an overly camp Stanley Tucci fails to generate interest, there’s something seriously amiss.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/19/better-suited-to-tv-a-little-chaos-review/
Kate Winslet takes on the role of Sabine De Barra, a visionary landscape gardener who is tasked with creating the stunning piece of architecture in Versailles for King Louis XIV, portrayed by a typically on-point Rickman.
8379_poster_iphoneThe plot is stretched out into a film that lasts a little over two hours and despite some breath-taking scenery and excellent performances, A Little Chaos couldn’t be further removed from its title – in fact it’s all a little flat and Saturday night TV drama-esque.
A promising supporting cast that includes Stanley Tucci as Louis XIV’s gay brother and Matthias Schoenaerts, a former Cesar award-winner, as the king’s principal gardener, is wasted as the film spends much of its running time trying to tie together numerous loose ends, from a tragedy plot to a new-found romance.
Rickman’s direction is admirable and he certainly knows how to get the best out of his landscapes, but like the many shrubs in A Little Chaos, it all needed pruning back slightly more with at least 20 minutes of exposition being completely unnecessary.
Moreover, for a film that has its secondary focus on horticulture, there is very little in the way of gardening, and I for one was hoping for more beautiful shots of the stunning grounds rather than rain-soaked Winslet and admittedly impressive hair pieces.
Nevertheless, both Winslet and Rickman are superb in their roles and it’s nice to see the latter take on something a little less sinister after his well-received performances in the Harry Potter franchise and of course his brilliant turn in Die Hard.
The former is, alongside Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore, one of the most reliable actresses in cinema. Her performance here is excellent and through her tragic past, we see more to the character of Sabine the further we get into the picture.
It’s just a shame that none of it registers. After a disappointingly slow first half, things only moderately gain pace as the film
reaches its poorly CGI finished conclusion. Winslet’s character is given more depth than she needs and the audience faces the difficult task of dealing with numerous bits of information that don’t really come together.
Overall, Alan Rickman’s latest effort in the director’s chair lacks the magic and sparkle that he brings to his acting and despite mesmerising performances from Kate Winslet and Rickman himself, A Little Chaos is more at home on the small screen, rather than the big.
After all, if an overly camp Stanley Tucci fails to generate interest, there’s something seriously amiss.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/19/better-suited-to-tv-a-little-chaos-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Outliers (The Outliers, #1) in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Wylie and Cassie aren't exactly best friends anymore. Even though Wylie's mom has died recently in a car crash, and Wylie's anxiety has ratcheted up so much she hasn't left the house in three weeks, the once inseparable pair have barely talked in over a week. But when Wylie gets a pleading text from Cassie saying she needs help, Wylie knows she will be there for her friend. Along with Cassie's boyfriend, Jasper, Wylie summons the courage to leave the house and follow Cassie's odd texts and clues to find her. But it doesn't take long to realize that Cassie might be in serious trouble. Even worse, it seems like trying to find Cassie is going to put Wylie, Jasper, and their families in danger, too.
This was an odd book. I was expecting a "run into obstacles finding my troubled best friend, maybe learn a lesson along the way" Young Adult tale, but the book takes a turn about halfway through and the tale becomes one of psychological depth, focusing on the story of the "outliers." <spoiler>These "outliers" are those who have a special range of emotional intelligence that allow them to have an uncanny ability to read people, emotions, and situations. It's Wylie's father, a scientist, who has discovered them as an unintentional result of his latest study, and it seems like everyone wants a piece of them and what they might mean. So, suddenly, the book is no longer simply about friendship, but crazy Government and private contractor entities and other shadowy forces who are after Wylie's dad's work. We meet a whole host of characters, none of whom we can really trust, and things (at least for me) go a little bit downhill from there. </spoiler>
That's not to say that this isn't a good book. It's interesting and almost compulsively readable, even with the bizarre plot. I'd probably have enjoyed it even more if I'd just been mentally prepared for the plot turn, honestly. Wylie is a fairly intriguing and likable character, and I found myself getting rather invested in Jasper. The other characters, as I said, are set up as untrustworthy purely by the nature of the plot, but they are fascinating in their own way. The idea of the outliers is a compelling one, even if the danger behind it seems a little forced. It's also hard not knowing exactly who to trust or how much of the narrative to believe - it's so much it gets a little frustrating at time. Still, it's clear by the end that McCreight has set this up as a series, and I'll certainly be reading the next book. The one is an entertaining, quick read if nothing else.
I received an ARC of this book from Edelweiss (thank you!); it is available for publication on 5/3/2016. You can read a review of this book and many more at my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
This was an odd book. I was expecting a "run into obstacles finding my troubled best friend, maybe learn a lesson along the way" Young Adult tale, but the book takes a turn about halfway through and the tale becomes one of psychological depth, focusing on the story of the "outliers." <spoiler>These "outliers" are those who have a special range of emotional intelligence that allow them to have an uncanny ability to read people, emotions, and situations. It's Wylie's father, a scientist, who has discovered them as an unintentional result of his latest study, and it seems like everyone wants a piece of them and what they might mean. So, suddenly, the book is no longer simply about friendship, but crazy Government and private contractor entities and other shadowy forces who are after Wylie's dad's work. We meet a whole host of characters, none of whom we can really trust, and things (at least for me) go a little bit downhill from there. </spoiler>
That's not to say that this isn't a good book. It's interesting and almost compulsively readable, even with the bizarre plot. I'd probably have enjoyed it even more if I'd just been mentally prepared for the plot turn, honestly. Wylie is a fairly intriguing and likable character, and I found myself getting rather invested in Jasper. The other characters, as I said, are set up as untrustworthy purely by the nature of the plot, but they are fascinating in their own way. The idea of the outliers is a compelling one, even if the danger behind it seems a little forced. It's also hard not knowing exactly who to trust or how much of the narrative to believe - it's so much it gets a little frustrating at time. Still, it's clear by the end that McCreight has set this up as a series, and I'll certainly be reading the next book. The one is an entertaining, quick read if nothing else.
I received an ARC of this book from Edelweiss (thank you!); it is available for publication on 5/3/2016. You can read a review of this book and many more at my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
“Halloween” has long been considered by many to have been the film that started the “Slasher” subculture. The independent movie became a box office smash and made Michael Myers a cultural icon ever since its debut in 1978.
Although multiple sequels and a reboot followed over the years; they did not match the intensity of the original as they opted for higher body counts and gore versus suspense and story and in many ways became almost a parody of themselves as Michael would cut down cast after cast of teens and anyone else in his way.
The new film takes the approach that none of the films after the first ever happened so instead of Michael stalking Lorrie in a hospital in “Halloween 2”; he was captured and incarcerated in an mental institute for the last forty years where he has remained silent despite his Doctor (Haluk Bilginer) best efforts to get him to speak as he attempts to understand what motivates a person described as pure evil.
The forty years since “The Night He Came Home” has not been kind to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis); as since her encounter with Michael: she has become a hard drinking isolationist who suffers from severe Post Traumatic Syndrome. Laurie has become obsessed with guns, weapons, and protection to the point that it has cost her two marriages and even had her only child Karen (Judy Greer) taken from her by the state which has resulted in her having a fractured relationship with her and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak).
When a pair of journalists attempt to interview Laurie to try to get her to agree to a face to face with Michael; it sets a chain of events into motion which leads to Michael escaping during a prison transfer.
Michael wastes no time in returning home leaving a trail of death in his path and sets him on a collision course with Laurie who has spent the last forty years preparing for his return.
The film is a true sequel to the original as aside from the second film; it is the closest in tone and theme to the original. While it does have more gore and a higher body count in keeping with the modern expectations of a film of this type, writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride clearly understand the source material and have crafted an extension of the original versus a continuation refurbished. The fact that John Carpenter has returned as an Executive Producer also helps.
The film wisely sets the focus on the characters which makes the horror aspects more compelling as this is not a bunch of anonymous victims we are watching.
A sequel is reportedly in development and I hope this creative team returns as this was a truly worthy sequel to the classic original that was long overdue.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/17/halloween/
Although multiple sequels and a reboot followed over the years; they did not match the intensity of the original as they opted for higher body counts and gore versus suspense and story and in many ways became almost a parody of themselves as Michael would cut down cast after cast of teens and anyone else in his way.
The new film takes the approach that none of the films after the first ever happened so instead of Michael stalking Lorrie in a hospital in “Halloween 2”; he was captured and incarcerated in an mental institute for the last forty years where he has remained silent despite his Doctor (Haluk Bilginer) best efforts to get him to speak as he attempts to understand what motivates a person described as pure evil.
The forty years since “The Night He Came Home” has not been kind to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis); as since her encounter with Michael: she has become a hard drinking isolationist who suffers from severe Post Traumatic Syndrome. Laurie has become obsessed with guns, weapons, and protection to the point that it has cost her two marriages and even had her only child Karen (Judy Greer) taken from her by the state which has resulted in her having a fractured relationship with her and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak).
When a pair of journalists attempt to interview Laurie to try to get her to agree to a face to face with Michael; it sets a chain of events into motion which leads to Michael escaping during a prison transfer.
Michael wastes no time in returning home leaving a trail of death in his path and sets him on a collision course with Laurie who has spent the last forty years preparing for his return.
The film is a true sequel to the original as aside from the second film; it is the closest in tone and theme to the original. While it does have more gore and a higher body count in keeping with the modern expectations of a film of this type, writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride clearly understand the source material and have crafted an extension of the original versus a continuation refurbished. The fact that John Carpenter has returned as an Executive Producer also helps.
The film wisely sets the focus on the characters which makes the horror aspects more compelling as this is not a bunch of anonymous victims we are watching.
A sequel is reportedly in development and I hope this creative team returns as this was a truly worthy sequel to the classic original that was long overdue.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/17/halloween/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover (1989) in Movies
Jan 29, 2019
Intriguing Movie
A woman begins a torrid romance of infidelity and tries to keep it from her nefarious husband.
Acting: 10
There is a reason Helen Mirren is one of my favorite actresses. She can be vulnerable and powerful all in the same breath. She makes you sympathize with her character and champion for her to win. She plays Georgina, the wife of a thug. She hates her life and is longing for more. The way she expresses that longing is done in subtle fashion, yet you can feel exactly what she is feeling. There are a number of strong performances in the film, but none quite as strong as hers.
Beginning: 1
I couldn’t tell up from down when the movie started. I didn’t know what to think, who to hate, or who to root for. That all eventually became clear, but the beginning was very muddled and had me losing hope that the movie could be good. Good thing there’s more to this film than the first ten minutes.
Characters: 7
The title, of course, gives away the characters that dominate the story. Each character carries their own weight and adds a different value to the story. Outside of Georgina, I enjoyed watching Alan Howard act out his role of Michael the Lover. He has an air of ignorance with a touch of nobility. He’s a good guy that enjoys being alone, not realizing that he is looking for someone special in his life. That is, until he meets Georgina who turns his life upside down. The interactions between the two provide for a number of great scenes. And, no, I’m not just referring to the sex, although there are some steamy scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Definitely not the best drama I’ve seen, but hands-down, one of the most unique. I can honestly say I’ve never seen anything quite like this movie. It’s different for a lot of reasons, but mainly in the way the film is shot which helps push the overall tone. It shines with a special kind of flare that sticks in your memory.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 5
Plot: 10
Unique story with an interesting twist. I appreciate when movies try and do something different, and that’s where (insert long title here) succeeds. It’s a gut-wrenching love story told with conviction and passion.
Resolution: 10
Can’t talk about this movie without talking about that ending. Wow, what an ending! Didn’t see it coming in the least. It was both unbelievable and gratifying at the same time. If you haven’t heard of or seen this movie, I won’t ruin it for you. I’ll just say prepare to be pleasantly shocked.
Overall: 77
A stronger beginning and a quicker pace could have made this movie excellent, but it’s still solid enough for a one-time watch. I can guarantee you The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.
Acting: 10
There is a reason Helen Mirren is one of my favorite actresses. She can be vulnerable and powerful all in the same breath. She makes you sympathize with her character and champion for her to win. She plays Georgina, the wife of a thug. She hates her life and is longing for more. The way she expresses that longing is done in subtle fashion, yet you can feel exactly what she is feeling. There are a number of strong performances in the film, but none quite as strong as hers.
Beginning: 1
I couldn’t tell up from down when the movie started. I didn’t know what to think, who to hate, or who to root for. That all eventually became clear, but the beginning was very muddled and had me losing hope that the movie could be good. Good thing there’s more to this film than the first ten minutes.
Characters: 7
The title, of course, gives away the characters that dominate the story. Each character carries their own weight and adds a different value to the story. Outside of Georgina, I enjoyed watching Alan Howard act out his role of Michael the Lover. He has an air of ignorance with a touch of nobility. He’s a good guy that enjoys being alone, not realizing that he is looking for someone special in his life. That is, until he meets Georgina who turns his life upside down. The interactions between the two provide for a number of great scenes. And, no, I’m not just referring to the sex, although there are some steamy scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Definitely not the best drama I’ve seen, but hands-down, one of the most unique. I can honestly say I’ve never seen anything quite like this movie. It’s different for a lot of reasons, but mainly in the way the film is shot which helps push the overall tone. It shines with a special kind of flare that sticks in your memory.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 5
Plot: 10
Unique story with an interesting twist. I appreciate when movies try and do something different, and that’s where (insert long title here) succeeds. It’s a gut-wrenching love story told with conviction and passion.
Resolution: 10
Can’t talk about this movie without talking about that ending. Wow, what an ending! Didn’t see it coming in the least. It was both unbelievable and gratifying at the same time. If you haven’t heard of or seen this movie, I won’t ruin it for you. I’ll just say prepare to be pleasantly shocked.
Overall: 77
A stronger beginning and a quicker pace could have made this movie excellent, but it’s still solid enough for a one-time watch. I can guarantee you The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.