Search
Search results
Fred (860 KP) rated Most Haunted in TV
Jan 31, 2019
This is still on?
I am writing this review, as I could not believe this show is still airing. Although none of you probably even heard of it, or are of the misfortune to have only seen the newer episodes
When this show started in 2002, I used to download it from the internet & I watched with my friend & my brother. I believe it was the first of these "ghost hunting" shows, or at least it was the first I ever heard of. We watched because it was funny. I think my brother believed in ghosts, but we mainly watched because it was hilarious. The show's "star" Yvette, used to scream at every little thing. She was just an observer at first & seemed skeptical, but was always scared out of her mind. The show's real star was Derek Acorah. Derek was the team's medium, who would talk to the spirits through his personal guide in the afterlife, Sam. Derek would act like Sam was talking to him & Derek would make statements like "Let him in, Sam!" or "Keep him back, Sam!" The show was enjoyable because it seemed like they were really trying to look for ghosts. And I have little doubt that Yvette thought the show was for-real at the beginning. Sometimes they would find something, sometimes not. Derek would almost always find something, even something minor. All mediums do (because they're all fakes), but it was at least entertaining.
A few years into the show, and Yvette starts to get stuck-up. She's no longer the scaredy cat she was. She's now standing up to the ghosts. This is because she knows there are no such things as ghosts. Sure, she still screams here & there, but it's all fake now. "Oh, something touched me!" or "Oh, I heard a knock!" And now, the team finds something every episode (just like all these shows do, because they're full of shit). But you can also tell by this time, she's jealous of Derek & the fact that he's much more popular than she is. And so, she sets up a plot to discredit Derek & out him as a fake, which is easy, because he is a fake. And she knows it, because she's a fake. She does this with other members of the show & Derek leaves the show to be replaced by another fake medium (again, they're all fake). This is when I stopped watching the show. To set someone up, who you know is fake, while you are also fake, is despicable.
Anyway, I see today that the show is on Travel Channel. I put it on & it's an episode from 2007. Derek is not on the show & the replacement fake is on. I watch to see what it's like. Still the same B.S., still fake. Yvette is still fake screaming. The episode is full of the same fake nonsense, like where someone off camera drops something or knocks on something & they react like it was a ghost. There's one difference I notice now though. Yvette is somehow sensitive to the ghosts now. She can feel the energy around her now. Hahahaha! Yeah, okay. Anyway, during the episode, we hear a thumping sound. Yvette mentions "It sounds like a heartbeat." and the other phonies agree.
Then, there's another episode. This one from 2014, 7 years later. Same stuff going on. In fact, at one point, there is a thumping sound. And once again Yvette say "It sounds like a heartbeat." HAHAHA!
But even more fascinating, the show is still on! After that episode aired, they show a new episode that just aired in England a few days ago. And the same crap is still going on.
Now, we have a slew of these shows. Each one ripped this one off & each one lies and fakes just like this one. They all deserve no stars, but I am giving Most Haunted 3, because it was entertaining and watchable thanks to Derek. Yes, watchable until Yvette's head got too big, for being a fake. If you're into the night-vision, everywhere is haunted, fake gadget, noise & voices can only be ghost shows that clutter TV now, you can thank this show for starting it all. Some can be entertaining, but most are just fake science, masquerading as the real thing.
When this show started in 2002, I used to download it from the internet & I watched with my friend & my brother. I believe it was the first of these "ghost hunting" shows, or at least it was the first I ever heard of. We watched because it was funny. I think my brother believed in ghosts, but we mainly watched because it was hilarious. The show's "star" Yvette, used to scream at every little thing. She was just an observer at first & seemed skeptical, but was always scared out of her mind. The show's real star was Derek Acorah. Derek was the team's medium, who would talk to the spirits through his personal guide in the afterlife, Sam. Derek would act like Sam was talking to him & Derek would make statements like "Let him in, Sam!" or "Keep him back, Sam!" The show was enjoyable because it seemed like they were really trying to look for ghosts. And I have little doubt that Yvette thought the show was for-real at the beginning. Sometimes they would find something, sometimes not. Derek would almost always find something, even something minor. All mediums do (because they're all fakes), but it was at least entertaining.
A few years into the show, and Yvette starts to get stuck-up. She's no longer the scaredy cat she was. She's now standing up to the ghosts. This is because she knows there are no such things as ghosts. Sure, she still screams here & there, but it's all fake now. "Oh, something touched me!" or "Oh, I heard a knock!" And now, the team finds something every episode (just like all these shows do, because they're full of shit). But you can also tell by this time, she's jealous of Derek & the fact that he's much more popular than she is. And so, she sets up a plot to discredit Derek & out him as a fake, which is easy, because he is a fake. And she knows it, because she's a fake. She does this with other members of the show & Derek leaves the show to be replaced by another fake medium (again, they're all fake). This is when I stopped watching the show. To set someone up, who you know is fake, while you are also fake, is despicable.
Anyway, I see today that the show is on Travel Channel. I put it on & it's an episode from 2007. Derek is not on the show & the replacement fake is on. I watch to see what it's like. Still the same B.S., still fake. Yvette is still fake screaming. The episode is full of the same fake nonsense, like where someone off camera drops something or knocks on something & they react like it was a ghost. There's one difference I notice now though. Yvette is somehow sensitive to the ghosts now. She can feel the energy around her now. Hahahaha! Yeah, okay. Anyway, during the episode, we hear a thumping sound. Yvette mentions "It sounds like a heartbeat." and the other phonies agree.
Then, there's another episode. This one from 2014, 7 years later. Same stuff going on. In fact, at one point, there is a thumping sound. And once again Yvette say "It sounds like a heartbeat." HAHAHA!
But even more fascinating, the show is still on! After that episode aired, they show a new episode that just aired in England a few days ago. And the same crap is still going on.
Now, we have a slew of these shows. Each one ripped this one off & each one lies and fakes just like this one. They all deserve no stars, but I am giving Most Haunted 3, because it was entertaining and watchable thanks to Derek. Yes, watchable until Yvette's head got too big, for being a fake. If you're into the night-vision, everywhere is haunted, fake gadget, noise & voices can only be ghost shows that clutter TV now, you can thank this show for starting it all. Some can be entertaining, but most are just fake science, masquerading as the real thing.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Zombies Vs. Unicorns in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b>Book Review</b>
I had heard about this feud soon after it started, so when news that a book was coming out I had to read it. C'mon, zombies and unicorns, this is a combination I couldn't miss out on. After a lackluster and disappointing start, with many stories I didn't like at all, I was starting to think I'd have a hard time finishing the book, even with the different authors. It wasn't until The Children of the Revolution by Maureen Johnson on page 147 that the stories picked up and I ended up enjoying the rest, though my enjoyment deviated from okay to great. The "arguments" between editors Holly Black (Team Unicorn) and Justine Larbalestier (Team Zombie) were usually quite amusing, though they themselves don't contribute to the book. I, for one, would have liked to have read their takes on their chosen teams.
I'm not going to review each story individually, but list them with my (very) basic impression of the story. The book has varying degrees of gore, cursing, sexual innuendo and references, bestiality (you read that right, but it's more referred to than shown, thank goodness), suicide, and other violent acts.
<u>Stories</u> (in order of appearance):
*The Highest Justice by Garth Nix (Marked as a unicorn story, this is actually both unicorn and zombie. A decent story.)
*Love Will Tear Us Apart by Alaya Dawn Johnson (Zombie. Did not care for this at all)
*Purity Test by Naomi Novik (Unicorn. Didn't hate this story, but wasn't fond of it either)
*Bougainvillea by Carrie Ryan (Zombie. Didn't like.)
*A Thousand Flowers by Margo Lanagan (Unicorn. Also wasn't fond of.)
*The Children of the Revolution by Maureen Johnson (Zombie. Rather twisted, but so am I, so I enjoyed it.)
*The Care and Feeding of Your Baby Killer Unicorn by Diana Peterfreund (Unicorn. My favorite story in the anthology.)
*Inoculata by Scott Westerfield (Zombie. Pretty good.)
*Princess Prettypants by Meg Cabot (Unicorn. Very tongue-in-cheek, I liked this story a lot.)
*Cold Hands by Cassandra Clare (Zombie. Interesting world created here. Definitely passed my likability test.)
*The Third Virgin by Kathleen Duey (Unicorn. An okay story.)
*Prom Night by Libba Bray (Zombie. Second favorite of the book and very close to a tie with Peterfreund's tale.)
The unicorn stories went in many different directions, with all sorts of unicorns, while most of the zombie stories stayed where you would expect them and had typical zombies, though there were a few surprises still in store. I went into this as Team Zombie, and while my favorite was a unicorn story, I still firmly remain with the shamblers. Overall, I ended up enjoying the majority of the book, so if you're interested in zombies, unicorns, or especially both, pick this up for an interesting assortment of stories.
3.5 stars for the print version
<b>Audio Review</b>
This unabridged CD set includes ten discs, which average a little over one story each, though generally there is one whole story bookended by the end of one preceding it and the start of another afterward that will continue onto the next disc. They have very short chapters, generally less than a minute and I could tell when each chapter ended and the next began, which didn't make for totally smooth listening but it also wasn't too bad either. I would have rather have had longer chapters that had a clearer starting and stopping point to make it easier to find my place again. Most of the readers, both male and female, sound fairly young, which makes sense since this is a YA anthology, but the majority also sounded as if they were reading to school children, which makes for annoying listening. I found most of the voices grating and unfortunately none of them are named for me to be more specific. However, the one male was fine and the woman who did Diana Peterfreund was good and I believe she also narrated one or two others in the book. The use of sound effects break up stories, a groan that also says "brains" for zombies and trumpets and a horse whinny for unicorns. Immediately after is the intro from the editors with their ongoing debate that became increasingly irritating as I read on; this may have to do with how they performed those discussions. As written word, these exchanges are far more entertaining. For the most part, I really didn't enjoy listening to this and much prefer reading it in print.
2 stars for audio
I had heard about this feud soon after it started, so when news that a book was coming out I had to read it. C'mon, zombies and unicorns, this is a combination I couldn't miss out on. After a lackluster and disappointing start, with many stories I didn't like at all, I was starting to think I'd have a hard time finishing the book, even with the different authors. It wasn't until The Children of the Revolution by Maureen Johnson on page 147 that the stories picked up and I ended up enjoying the rest, though my enjoyment deviated from okay to great. The "arguments" between editors Holly Black (Team Unicorn) and Justine Larbalestier (Team Zombie) were usually quite amusing, though they themselves don't contribute to the book. I, for one, would have liked to have read their takes on their chosen teams.
I'm not going to review each story individually, but list them with my (very) basic impression of the story. The book has varying degrees of gore, cursing, sexual innuendo and references, bestiality (you read that right, but it's more referred to than shown, thank goodness), suicide, and other violent acts.
<u>Stories</u> (in order of appearance):
*The Highest Justice by Garth Nix (Marked as a unicorn story, this is actually both unicorn and zombie. A decent story.)
*Love Will Tear Us Apart by Alaya Dawn Johnson (Zombie. Did not care for this at all)
*Purity Test by Naomi Novik (Unicorn. Didn't hate this story, but wasn't fond of it either)
*Bougainvillea by Carrie Ryan (Zombie. Didn't like.)
*A Thousand Flowers by Margo Lanagan (Unicorn. Also wasn't fond of.)
*The Children of the Revolution by Maureen Johnson (Zombie. Rather twisted, but so am I, so I enjoyed it.)
*The Care and Feeding of Your Baby Killer Unicorn by Diana Peterfreund (Unicorn. My favorite story in the anthology.)
*Inoculata by Scott Westerfield (Zombie. Pretty good.)
*Princess Prettypants by Meg Cabot (Unicorn. Very tongue-in-cheek, I liked this story a lot.)
*Cold Hands by Cassandra Clare (Zombie. Interesting world created here. Definitely passed my likability test.)
*The Third Virgin by Kathleen Duey (Unicorn. An okay story.)
*Prom Night by Libba Bray (Zombie. Second favorite of the book and very close to a tie with Peterfreund's tale.)
The unicorn stories went in many different directions, with all sorts of unicorns, while most of the zombie stories stayed where you would expect them and had typical zombies, though there were a few surprises still in store. I went into this as Team Zombie, and while my favorite was a unicorn story, I still firmly remain with the shamblers. Overall, I ended up enjoying the majority of the book, so if you're interested in zombies, unicorns, or especially both, pick this up for an interesting assortment of stories.
3.5 stars for the print version
<b>Audio Review</b>
This unabridged CD set includes ten discs, which average a little over one story each, though generally there is one whole story bookended by the end of one preceding it and the start of another afterward that will continue onto the next disc. They have very short chapters, generally less than a minute and I could tell when each chapter ended and the next began, which didn't make for totally smooth listening but it also wasn't too bad either. I would have rather have had longer chapters that had a clearer starting and stopping point to make it easier to find my place again. Most of the readers, both male and female, sound fairly young, which makes sense since this is a YA anthology, but the majority also sounded as if they were reading to school children, which makes for annoying listening. I found most of the voices grating and unfortunately none of them are named for me to be more specific. However, the one male was fine and the woman who did Diana Peterfreund was good and I believe she also narrated one or two others in the book. The use of sound effects break up stories, a groan that also says "brains" for zombies and trumpets and a horse whinny for unicorns. Immediately after is the intro from the editors with their ongoing debate that became increasingly irritating as I read on; this may have to do with how they performed those discussions. As written word, these exchanges are far more entertaining. For the most part, I really didn't enjoy listening to this and much prefer reading it in print.
2 stars for audio
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Big Trail (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“The Indians are my friends…” Breck Coleman – John Wayne
Not exactly a statement that would exemplify the Career of a man rightly or wrongly associated as being the Cowboy of the Cowboy and Indian movies. But there is no doubt that John Wayne was certainly one of the biggest western stars of cinema.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 4, 2019 (Updated May 4, 2019)
Surprisingly Strong Chemistry Between The Leads
Quite a few people that I have spoken with don't like either Charlize Theron or Seth Rogan as performers, so the idea of a pairing of the straight-laced, uptight politician played by Theron and the shlubby, weed-smoking slacker played by Rogan was like "nails on a chalkboard" to them.
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Last Dragon (1985) in Movies
Jun 7, 2019
So Bad You Just Might Like it
In his quest to find “The Master” and expand his training, black martial arts expert Bruce Leroy (Taimak) has to square off against Sho’nuff the Shogun of Harlem. With me, yet?
Acting: 10
The performances aren’t what killed this movie. Julius Carry pulls off one of my all-time favorite roles as Sho-Nuff, playing a villain that’s not hard to hate. His nemesis, hero Bruce Leroy is played with a sweet innocence by Taimak who harbors a fierce fighting style similar to his idol who is none other than…well, you guessed it, Bruce Lee. Sometimes a bit overdone, I thought overall the acting fit the movie’s overblown proportions as a whole.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 5
Again, the problem isn’t the acting. It’s the characters portrayed by the actors. They are as cardboard as they come, seemingly like caricatures of actual roles. This can be summed up by one role in particular: Eddie Arkadian (Chris Murney). Part business-owner, part gangster, you look at his mean scowl and listen to his horrible lines thinking, “Why are they ruining this man’s career with this role? This is awful!” I can imagine there were a lot of career-ruining roles in this movie. I haven’t even mentioned Eddie’s girlfriend, Angela whose voice alone gives me the urge to punt a baby. I can imagine director Michael Schultz walking up to Faith Prince saying, “Great take! Now, could you do me a favor? Could you sound more like Miss Piggy in distress? Please and thank you!”
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
The style that Schultz tries to establish comes off as cheesy and overdone. He takes the phrase “A little dab’ll do ya” and decides to do the complete opposite. There is nothing special to see and too much to see at the same time. As confusing as that might sound, if you watch the movie, you’ll get it. While there are glimpses of cool effects, even those are drowned by poor cinematic direction. There is one scene towards the end where Bruce Leroy’s hands starts to glow. He slowly moves them in a wavy pattern which creates a cool effect….until he starts doing it super fast and literally multiplies himself in some crazy funhouse type of way. Whomp whomp.
Conflict: 6
Because the movie struggles to find it’s way juggling back and forth between soundtrack-driven, drama, comedy, and action movie, the conflict suffers as a result. The fighting scenes aren’t terrible when they happen but there is too much of everything else to really leave you satisfied with those scenes. I would have been happier with no attempted character or story development and just two pure hours of Bruce Leroy kicking peoples’ teeth out. When I watched the last showdown between Leroy and Sho’nuff, I thought they were really on to something. Unfortunately they got lost along the way.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 5
Love it or hate it (or both), you’ll be hard-pressed leaving the movie not quoting at least a handful of lines. It’s a movie that sticks to you whether you want it to or not. It does leave something of an impact, although not very lasting.
Pace: 3
Between Leroy searching for The Master and Eddie trying to get his girl a record deal, the movie really drags on in spots. I don’t say this often, but a little more linearity in this case would have been just fine. The Last Dragon suffers from a severe case of Much Ado About Nothing. Just when you think something is about to pop off, the scene ends with a whimper.
Plot: 2
As a kid, I thought the storyline was funny. Now I think it’s just plain sad. I don’t know how much thought went into that script, but reading through it should give any aspiring screenwriter hope that they too can make it big. Stories within ridiculous stories, a meh love story, and terrible motivations all around take a machete to the movie before it even had a chance.
Resolution: 7
Overall: 52
For my 100th review, I wanted to review a movie that had some kind of value to me. I grew up with The Last Dragon and, I have to say, it is a pretty damn fun movie. Fun, unfortunately, doesn’t always equate to good. There is a reason it has an 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes right now, though. No matter how you feel about it, there will come a point when you’re watching, even if it’s for five minutes, where you find yourself having an actual good time. Unfortunately it’s the other 103 minutes you have to worry about.
Acting: 10
The performances aren’t what killed this movie. Julius Carry pulls off one of my all-time favorite roles as Sho-Nuff, playing a villain that’s not hard to hate. His nemesis, hero Bruce Leroy is played with a sweet innocence by Taimak who harbors a fierce fighting style similar to his idol who is none other than…well, you guessed it, Bruce Lee. Sometimes a bit overdone, I thought overall the acting fit the movie’s overblown proportions as a whole.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 5
Again, the problem isn’t the acting. It’s the characters portrayed by the actors. They are as cardboard as they come, seemingly like caricatures of actual roles. This can be summed up by one role in particular: Eddie Arkadian (Chris Murney). Part business-owner, part gangster, you look at his mean scowl and listen to his horrible lines thinking, “Why are they ruining this man’s career with this role? This is awful!” I can imagine there were a lot of career-ruining roles in this movie. I haven’t even mentioned Eddie’s girlfriend, Angela whose voice alone gives me the urge to punt a baby. I can imagine director Michael Schultz walking up to Faith Prince saying, “Great take! Now, could you do me a favor? Could you sound more like Miss Piggy in distress? Please and thank you!”
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
The style that Schultz tries to establish comes off as cheesy and overdone. He takes the phrase “A little dab’ll do ya” and decides to do the complete opposite. There is nothing special to see and too much to see at the same time. As confusing as that might sound, if you watch the movie, you’ll get it. While there are glimpses of cool effects, even those are drowned by poor cinematic direction. There is one scene towards the end where Bruce Leroy’s hands starts to glow. He slowly moves them in a wavy pattern which creates a cool effect….until he starts doing it super fast and literally multiplies himself in some crazy funhouse type of way. Whomp whomp.
Conflict: 6
Because the movie struggles to find it’s way juggling back and forth between soundtrack-driven, drama, comedy, and action movie, the conflict suffers as a result. The fighting scenes aren’t terrible when they happen but there is too much of everything else to really leave you satisfied with those scenes. I would have been happier with no attempted character or story development and just two pure hours of Bruce Leroy kicking peoples’ teeth out. When I watched the last showdown between Leroy and Sho’nuff, I thought they were really on to something. Unfortunately they got lost along the way.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 5
Love it or hate it (or both), you’ll be hard-pressed leaving the movie not quoting at least a handful of lines. It’s a movie that sticks to you whether you want it to or not. It does leave something of an impact, although not very lasting.
Pace: 3
Between Leroy searching for The Master and Eddie trying to get his girl a record deal, the movie really drags on in spots. I don’t say this often, but a little more linearity in this case would have been just fine. The Last Dragon suffers from a severe case of Much Ado About Nothing. Just when you think something is about to pop off, the scene ends with a whimper.
Plot: 2
As a kid, I thought the storyline was funny. Now I think it’s just plain sad. I don’t know how much thought went into that script, but reading through it should give any aspiring screenwriter hope that they too can make it big. Stories within ridiculous stories, a meh love story, and terrible motivations all around take a machete to the movie before it even had a chance.
Resolution: 7
Overall: 52
For my 100th review, I wanted to review a movie that had some kind of value to me. I grew up with The Last Dragon and, I have to say, it is a pretty damn fun movie. Fun, unfortunately, doesn’t always equate to good. There is a reason it has an 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes right now, though. No matter how you feel about it, there will come a point when you’re watching, even if it’s for five minutes, where you find yourself having an actual good time. Unfortunately it’s the other 103 minutes you have to worry about.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
All hail the Titans
2014’s Godzilla was a thrilling and somewhat underrated return to form for the king of the kaiju. Directed by visionary film-maker Gareth Edwards, Godzilla’s return to the big screen was beautifully filmed with some of the best set pieces ever seen on celluloid. It certainly made up for the Roland Emmerich monstrosity that shall remain nameless here.
Little did we know 5 years ago that Edwards’ mega movie would be the start of a franchise culminating in a battle of the ages: Godzilla vs Kong. Follow-up film Kong: Skull Island was again, beautifully filmed, feeling like a movie from a completely different era. Now the follow-up to the follow-up is here. Still with us? Good.
Members of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species-thought to be mere myths-rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity’s very existence hanging in the balance.
Taking over from Gareth Edwards after he chose not to return to the franchise is director Michael Dougherty. If the name rings a bell, it’s because he co-wrote X2 and directed the fantastic horror comedy, Krampus. Used to much-lower budgets than this $200million behemoth, Dougherty crafts a film that throws everything including the kitchen sink at the audience, but lacks the lightness of touch that made its predecessors such popcorn-munching fun.
With a cast that includes Stranger Things’ Millie Bobby Brown, Vera Farmiga, Sally Hawkins, Ken Watanabe, Charles Dance and Kyle Chandler, you’d be forgiven that everything from a characterisation point of view would be spot on. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case. The story and screenplay, penned by Dougherty himself is really lacklustre with poor, cringeworthy dialogue and some wooden performances by actors who should really know better. The attempts at Marvel-esque humour fall completely flat and this is a real shame.
Making her feature film debut, Mille Bobby Brown salvages what she can from the script and performs very well but when the screenplay doesn’t know what to do with individual characters, they’re tossed aside as Ghidorah fodder and completely forgotten about. Not only is this frustrating for the audience, but it certainly isn’t script-writing best practice.
Thankfully, things start to turn around when it comes to the cinematography. Lawrence Sher, who has worked on Paul, The Hangover and the upcoming Joker movie picks some outstanding shots that make you feel very much part of this almost apocalyptic universe the Titans are roaming. While stopping short of beautiful, many of the sequences are too messy for that, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a very attractive film indeed and the colours used are ethereal in their nature and require the biggest screen possible to get the most from them.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work
The special effects too make a lasting impression. This was not a cheap film to make and thankfully this shows on screen. Whilst naturally heavy on CGI, Dougherty has stated that practical effects had been used wherever possible. Perhaps the biggest compliment here is that it’s impossible to tell where practical meets CG.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work that has gone into making Godzilla 2. Mothra in particular is a sight to behold.
Bear McCreary’s score too is very good. After working on relatively low-budget films until now, his orchestral and vocal compositions work beautifully with what’s being shown on screen and the music has an operatic vibe that feels truly fitting of a film of this magnitude.
Nevertheless, Godzilla: King of the Monster’s downfall is in that shoddy script. None of the actors bring their a-game here and moments that should have emotional poignancy don’t hit home because they’re not allowed to. Within 10 minutes of the film’s opening, we’re smack bang in the middle of an action sequence with it rarely letting up until the thrilling finale 2 hours later.
Overall, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a perfectly adequate outing for the king of the kaiju but one that comes with a dash of disappointment. The bar was set incredibly high by Gareth Edwards and while the special effects and action scenes are impressive, that’s not enough to mask poor storytelling and thinly drawn characters.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/29/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-review-all-hail-the-titans/
Little did we know 5 years ago that Edwards’ mega movie would be the start of a franchise culminating in a battle of the ages: Godzilla vs Kong. Follow-up film Kong: Skull Island was again, beautifully filmed, feeling like a movie from a completely different era. Now the follow-up to the follow-up is here. Still with us? Good.
Members of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species-thought to be mere myths-rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity’s very existence hanging in the balance.
Taking over from Gareth Edwards after he chose not to return to the franchise is director Michael Dougherty. If the name rings a bell, it’s because he co-wrote X2 and directed the fantastic horror comedy, Krampus. Used to much-lower budgets than this $200million behemoth, Dougherty crafts a film that throws everything including the kitchen sink at the audience, but lacks the lightness of touch that made its predecessors such popcorn-munching fun.
With a cast that includes Stranger Things’ Millie Bobby Brown, Vera Farmiga, Sally Hawkins, Ken Watanabe, Charles Dance and Kyle Chandler, you’d be forgiven that everything from a characterisation point of view would be spot on. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case. The story and screenplay, penned by Dougherty himself is really lacklustre with poor, cringeworthy dialogue and some wooden performances by actors who should really know better. The attempts at Marvel-esque humour fall completely flat and this is a real shame.
Making her feature film debut, Mille Bobby Brown salvages what she can from the script and performs very well but when the screenplay doesn’t know what to do with individual characters, they’re tossed aside as Ghidorah fodder and completely forgotten about. Not only is this frustrating for the audience, but it certainly isn’t script-writing best practice.
Thankfully, things start to turn around when it comes to the cinematography. Lawrence Sher, who has worked on Paul, The Hangover and the upcoming Joker movie picks some outstanding shots that make you feel very much part of this almost apocalyptic universe the Titans are roaming. While stopping short of beautiful, many of the sequences are too messy for that, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a very attractive film indeed and the colours used are ethereal in their nature and require the biggest screen possible to get the most from them.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work
The special effects too make a lasting impression. This was not a cheap film to make and thankfully this shows on screen. Whilst naturally heavy on CGI, Dougherty has stated that practical effects had been used wherever possible. Perhaps the biggest compliment here is that it’s impossible to tell where practical meets CG.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work that has gone into making Godzilla 2. Mothra in particular is a sight to behold.
Bear McCreary’s score too is very good. After working on relatively low-budget films until now, his orchestral and vocal compositions work beautifully with what’s being shown on screen and the music has an operatic vibe that feels truly fitting of a film of this magnitude.
Nevertheless, Godzilla: King of the Monster’s downfall is in that shoddy script. None of the actors bring their a-game here and moments that should have emotional poignancy don’t hit home because they’re not allowed to. Within 10 minutes of the film’s opening, we’re smack bang in the middle of an action sequence with it rarely letting up until the thrilling finale 2 hours later.
Overall, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a perfectly adequate outing for the king of the kaiju but one that comes with a dash of disappointment. The bar was set incredibly high by Gareth Edwards and while the special effects and action scenes are impressive, that’s not enough to mask poor storytelling and thinly drawn characters.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/29/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-review-all-hail-the-titans/
Dana (24 KP) rated Tender Buttons in Books
Mar 23, 2018
This book of poetry is chaotic, at best. But that does not mean it is without meaning or cohesion. Through its chaos, the story emerges in little hints and connections that track and follow the speaker through their thought processes in each of the sections of the book: Objects, Food, and Rooms.
I don't normally enjoy modernist poetry much because I feel it tries too hard to be something it is not. It tries to solve problems it cannot, but I have enjoyed this book a lot. Instead of always trying to solve problems, it states how it is. The problems are still there, the chaos is still there, but there is still a sense of peace at what the world is. The speaker is an ordinary person doing ordinary things, thinking about a world that has gone to shit, and that is really relatable.
There is a lot of attention to color in this collection. In the first section, there was a focus on Red and Yellow. In the second, coal is a constant. The colors represent the changing times, the coal especially. Red, the color of blood and war. Yellow, the color of change, and illness. The war had become an illness that had spread across Europe and eventually, the world.
I love how the style is not really a poetic style. Instead it is written in a prose form, but not as a coherent story with a plot line. I appreciate how Stein is creating and experimenting with different styles of writing to try to convey what she wants to.
In the section Objects, there was a quote that I very much liked because I felt like it summed up how that section had been flowing, for me at least. "Book was there, it was there. Book was there. Stop it, stop it, it was a cleaner, a wet cleaner and it was not where it was wet, it was not high, it was directly placed back, not back again, back, it was returned, it was needless, it put a bank, a bank when, a bank care." (30) This quote is showing the chaos of the mind, the disruptions of how it thinks when trying to focus or process what is happening to it. This is how many people's thoughts may have seemed during and after the two World Wars, something Modernist literature and poetry often brings up.
"There is coagulation in cold and there is none in prudence. Something is preserved and the evening is long and the colder spring has sudden shadows in a sun." (40) I like this quotation from the second section, Food, because it acknowledges that even in a time of rebirth, there is still coldness and death. There are shadows in Spring because it is acknowledging the death that had to happen for the rebirth to occur. The "coagulation" can be a congregation of people when the times get tough. When it is "cold" people come together, but in times of prudence, or in times of happiness and peace, people do not feel the need to come together. There is a self-isolation that occurs in the good times.
"A sentence of vagueness that is violence is authority and a mission and stumbling and also certainly also a prison. Calmness, calm beside the plate and in way in. There is no turn in terror. There is no volume in sound." (40) In this section, there it shows that you cannot control the world. There will always be chaos and pain and violence, but you have to learn how to live through it and survive because if you do not, you will be left in your pain with no way out.
"This shows the disorder, it does, it shows more likeness than anything else, it shows the single mind that directs an apple. All the coats have a different shape, that does not mean that they differ in color, it means a union between use and exercise and a horse." (67) This quote shows the reason and necessity of the poem. Like I said before, this book is chaotic to show the connections in chaos. It is a portrayal of the mind in a chaotic state. Everything is able to be connected because it is all from one mind and person.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this book. I thought it was very relevant to today, even though it was written over one hundred years ago. I recommend that you read this, even if you are not really in to modernist writing because, even though it is confusing at first, once you start thinking about it, it becomes very poignant and interesting.
I don't normally enjoy modernist poetry much because I feel it tries too hard to be something it is not. It tries to solve problems it cannot, but I have enjoyed this book a lot. Instead of always trying to solve problems, it states how it is. The problems are still there, the chaos is still there, but there is still a sense of peace at what the world is. The speaker is an ordinary person doing ordinary things, thinking about a world that has gone to shit, and that is really relatable.
There is a lot of attention to color in this collection. In the first section, there was a focus on Red and Yellow. In the second, coal is a constant. The colors represent the changing times, the coal especially. Red, the color of blood and war. Yellow, the color of change, and illness. The war had become an illness that had spread across Europe and eventually, the world.
I love how the style is not really a poetic style. Instead it is written in a prose form, but not as a coherent story with a plot line. I appreciate how Stein is creating and experimenting with different styles of writing to try to convey what she wants to.
In the section Objects, there was a quote that I very much liked because I felt like it summed up how that section had been flowing, for me at least. "Book was there, it was there. Book was there. Stop it, stop it, it was a cleaner, a wet cleaner and it was not where it was wet, it was not high, it was directly placed back, not back again, back, it was returned, it was needless, it put a bank, a bank when, a bank care." (30) This quote is showing the chaos of the mind, the disruptions of how it thinks when trying to focus or process what is happening to it. This is how many people's thoughts may have seemed during and after the two World Wars, something Modernist literature and poetry often brings up.
"There is coagulation in cold and there is none in prudence. Something is preserved and the evening is long and the colder spring has sudden shadows in a sun." (40) I like this quotation from the second section, Food, because it acknowledges that even in a time of rebirth, there is still coldness and death. There are shadows in Spring because it is acknowledging the death that had to happen for the rebirth to occur. The "coagulation" can be a congregation of people when the times get tough. When it is "cold" people come together, but in times of prudence, or in times of happiness and peace, people do not feel the need to come together. There is a self-isolation that occurs in the good times.
"A sentence of vagueness that is violence is authority and a mission and stumbling and also certainly also a prison. Calmness, calm beside the plate and in way in. There is no turn in terror. There is no volume in sound." (40) In this section, there it shows that you cannot control the world. There will always be chaos and pain and violence, but you have to learn how to live through it and survive because if you do not, you will be left in your pain with no way out.
"This shows the disorder, it does, it shows more likeness than anything else, it shows the single mind that directs an apple. All the coats have a different shape, that does not mean that they differ in color, it means a union between use and exercise and a horse." (67) This quote shows the reason and necessity of the poem. Like I said before, this book is chaotic to show the connections in chaos. It is a portrayal of the mind in a chaotic state. Everything is able to be connected because it is all from one mind and person.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this book. I thought it was very relevant to today, even though it was written over one hundred years ago. I recommend that you read this, even if you are not really in to modernist writing because, even though it is confusing at first, once you start thinking about it, it becomes very poignant and interesting.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Perfect Death in Books
Sep 28, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have debated with myself over a rating for this, the third in the "DI Luc Callanach" series of Edinburgh police procedurals. While the overall story is definitely a 4 star, verging on 5, certain aspects of the dialogue in this one were a little jarring at times, and the plot hinged on a couple of very out of character decisions on the part of the murderer.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The A Plate (2012) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: The A Plate starts by introducing us to Jay Roth (Jacobsen) a car salesman working for Stevens Motors, Jay sees himself as one of the best in the business and uses his position to pick up woman but what he really wants it to be the manager which is currently filled by Dick Stevens (McMurray). When Dick gets cheating on his wife Candice (Barnes) she wants divorce which includes taking the dealership.
Jay sees this as a chance to take over the dealership by playing both sides of the divorce to put everything into place to become a partner. Jay takes a turn when he meets the Stevens’ daughter Andrea (Emery) who he gets told is off limits. As we know Jay won’t say no to a lady leading him to continue chase Andrea before getting involved in a relationship that will put his dealership dreams in threat.
The A Plate is a romantic comedy that is filled with hugely unlikable characters. We have an owner of car dealership going through a divorce which seems to end up getting pushed to the back while an awkward painfully romantic angle where the girl still falls for the guys crap even though she knows what car dealers are meant to be like. I don’t think the storylines mix together enough to have an impact upon each other and as soon as the romantic angle starts the whole business idea gets forgotten. We do have funny moments but I just never got into the idea of this being realistic story because of the characters. (4/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Shane Jacobsen: Jay Roth is the slick car salesman who uses all his skills on selling cars to get woman into bed. Jay wants to becoming the dealer but to do so he must play both sides of the owners into making them agree with them. All his plans get put at risk when he starts dating his boss’ daughter. Shane does a solid job even if his character is hugely unlikable. (6/10)
Sam McMurray: Dick Stevens is the owner of the dealership who is going to lose everything after getting caught cheating. He has to try and work out a way to make sure he keeps the dealership. Sam does a solid job but seems to over try and make each scene seem important. (5/10)
Julie Ann Emery: Andrea Stevens is the daughter of the boss who has caught the eye of Jay who even after being told to keep away goes after her as she returns home to help with the parents’ divorce. Julie does a solid job but never really has enough chemistry with Shane. (5/10)
Priscilla Barnes: Candice Stevens is the wife of Dick’s who wants everything after she catches him cheating and working with Jay tries to get the dealership. Priscilla does a solid job with her limited scenes. (6/10)
Support Cast: The A Plate has a supporting characters that are mainly used to add comedy to the film, we have Jay’s grandfather who steals the scenes.
Director Review: Terre Weisman – Terre creates a standard romantic comedy that will not go down as ground breaking. (5/10)
Comedy: The A Plate has its moments but never makes you laugh out loud. (5/10)
Romance: The A Plate has what looks like an awkward romantic angle where both sides should know better and still get involved. (5/10)
Chemistry: The A Plate struggles to create enough chemistry between the two leads. (4/10)
Settings: The A Plate has standard group of settings but none of which will make you remember anything in the film. (5/10)
Suggestion: The A Plate is one for the romantic comedy fans to try but I didn’t find it one of the good ones. (Rom Com Fans Try)
Best Part: Whip cream moments.
Worst Part: The stories don’t work well enough together.
Funniest Scene: Second whip cream moment.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: Won 3 Awards in small festivals including Boston International and Hoboken International.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Release Date: 2nd June 2015 on VOD
Overall: Rom Coms have to do a lot to make me interested, this didn’t do enough.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/31/the-a-plate-2011/
Jay sees this as a chance to take over the dealership by playing both sides of the divorce to put everything into place to become a partner. Jay takes a turn when he meets the Stevens’ daughter Andrea (Emery) who he gets told is off limits. As we know Jay won’t say no to a lady leading him to continue chase Andrea before getting involved in a relationship that will put his dealership dreams in threat.
The A Plate is a romantic comedy that is filled with hugely unlikable characters. We have an owner of car dealership going through a divorce which seems to end up getting pushed to the back while an awkward painfully romantic angle where the girl still falls for the guys crap even though she knows what car dealers are meant to be like. I don’t think the storylines mix together enough to have an impact upon each other and as soon as the romantic angle starts the whole business idea gets forgotten. We do have funny moments but I just never got into the idea of this being realistic story because of the characters. (4/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Shane Jacobsen: Jay Roth is the slick car salesman who uses all his skills on selling cars to get woman into bed. Jay wants to becoming the dealer but to do so he must play both sides of the owners into making them agree with them. All his plans get put at risk when he starts dating his boss’ daughter. Shane does a solid job even if his character is hugely unlikable. (6/10)
Sam McMurray: Dick Stevens is the owner of the dealership who is going to lose everything after getting caught cheating. He has to try and work out a way to make sure he keeps the dealership. Sam does a solid job but seems to over try and make each scene seem important. (5/10)
Julie Ann Emery: Andrea Stevens is the daughter of the boss who has caught the eye of Jay who even after being told to keep away goes after her as she returns home to help with the parents’ divorce. Julie does a solid job but never really has enough chemistry with Shane. (5/10)
Priscilla Barnes: Candice Stevens is the wife of Dick’s who wants everything after she catches him cheating and working with Jay tries to get the dealership. Priscilla does a solid job with her limited scenes. (6/10)
Support Cast: The A Plate has a supporting characters that are mainly used to add comedy to the film, we have Jay’s grandfather who steals the scenes.
Director Review: Terre Weisman – Terre creates a standard romantic comedy that will not go down as ground breaking. (5/10)
Comedy: The A Plate has its moments but never makes you laugh out loud. (5/10)
Romance: The A Plate has what looks like an awkward romantic angle where both sides should know better and still get involved. (5/10)
Chemistry: The A Plate struggles to create enough chemistry between the two leads. (4/10)
Settings: The A Plate has standard group of settings but none of which will make you remember anything in the film. (5/10)
Suggestion: The A Plate is one for the romantic comedy fans to try but I didn’t find it one of the good ones. (Rom Com Fans Try)
Best Part: Whip cream moments.
Worst Part: The stories don’t work well enough together.
Funniest Scene: Second whip cream moment.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: Won 3 Awards in small festivals including Boston International and Hoboken International.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Release Date: 2nd June 2015 on VOD
Overall: Rom Coms have to do a lot to make me interested, this didn’t do enough.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/31/the-a-plate-2011/