Search
Search results
Avenza Maps
Navigation and Travel
App
Get the App. Get the Map.® - Avenza Maps is a powerful, award-winning offline map viewer with a...
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Golden Couple in Books
Aug 25, 2021
I've read every book that Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen have wrote together, so when I got the chance to read their latest book entitled The Golden Couple, I jumped at the chance! I've loved every novel they've written together, and I definitely loved The Golden Couple.
The synopsis for The Golden Couple reeled me in. The plot was solid albeit a little farfetched towards the ending when everything is revealed. Still, the writing was done fantastically, and I was instantly transported to this world Hendricks and Pekkanen had created. With all that was going on, I felt like there was one main storyline and two minor storylines going on. It was fun reading The Golden Couple and trying to figure out who all was guilty. In fact, there were times I thought it may even be Marissa creating problems for herself to make herself look more like the victim. While this book is more predictable and doesn't have as many plot twists as Hendricks' and Pekkanen's previous novels, the plot twists in this novel were interesting to say the least. I kind of suspected the culprit of the story, but then again, everyone was a suspect in my head. The ending is tied up nicely with no loose ends which is always a plus for me.
Hendricks and Pekkanen know how to write some stellar characters! I felt as if every character in The Golden Couple was fleshed out enough to feel realistic instead of just some writing on paper. Marissa showed that she was only human through her mistakes. (Personally, I don't think I would be as forgiving as her husband, Matthew, appeared to be if my spouse cheated on me.) I felt that I would probably be like Marissa if I were in her shoes. She was fairly easy to relate to. I loved how much love she had for her young son, and I liked how willing she was to work on her marriage. I felt sorry for Marissa's husband, Matthew, when Marissa revealed she had cheated on him. I did like how forgiving he was and how much it seemed that he wanted to work on the marriage even though he wasn't the one who cheated. Sometimes I did think he tried to hard though to make Marissa feel loved. Polly, Marissa's assistant, was definitely an interesting character for sure. I didn't know what to make of her or if she could be trusted. She seemed to eager to please Marissa and like she was trying to hard to be Marissa. Still, she was a well written and likeable character. I enjoyed Avery and her very logical mind as well as her very different approach to non-traditional therapy. Her tactics she used were definitely different (and probably illegal), but they always seemed to work. I also admired how dedicated she was to her clients and how much she wanted to help them. Avery came across as very smart and sophisticated.
Trigger warnings for The Golden Couple include infidelity, profanity, alcohol use, some violence, gun violence, death, and murder.
Overall, The Golden Couple is a highly entertaining read that you will not want to put down. It will leave you guessing until the very end. I would definitely recommend The Golden Couple by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen to those aged 18+ who are after a fantastic thriller that will stay with them for awhile.
--
(A special thank you to Netgalley and St. Martin's Press for providing me with an ARC eBook of The Golden Couple by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.)
The synopsis for The Golden Couple reeled me in. The plot was solid albeit a little farfetched towards the ending when everything is revealed. Still, the writing was done fantastically, and I was instantly transported to this world Hendricks and Pekkanen had created. With all that was going on, I felt like there was one main storyline and two minor storylines going on. It was fun reading The Golden Couple and trying to figure out who all was guilty. In fact, there were times I thought it may even be Marissa creating problems for herself to make herself look more like the victim. While this book is more predictable and doesn't have as many plot twists as Hendricks' and Pekkanen's previous novels, the plot twists in this novel were interesting to say the least. I kind of suspected the culprit of the story, but then again, everyone was a suspect in my head. The ending is tied up nicely with no loose ends which is always a plus for me.
Hendricks and Pekkanen know how to write some stellar characters! I felt as if every character in The Golden Couple was fleshed out enough to feel realistic instead of just some writing on paper. Marissa showed that she was only human through her mistakes. (Personally, I don't think I would be as forgiving as her husband, Matthew, appeared to be if my spouse cheated on me.) I felt that I would probably be like Marissa if I were in her shoes. She was fairly easy to relate to. I loved how much love she had for her young son, and I liked how willing she was to work on her marriage. I felt sorry for Marissa's husband, Matthew, when Marissa revealed she had cheated on him. I did like how forgiving he was and how much it seemed that he wanted to work on the marriage even though he wasn't the one who cheated. Sometimes I did think he tried to hard though to make Marissa feel loved. Polly, Marissa's assistant, was definitely an interesting character for sure. I didn't know what to make of her or if she could be trusted. She seemed to eager to please Marissa and like she was trying to hard to be Marissa. Still, she was a well written and likeable character. I enjoyed Avery and her very logical mind as well as her very different approach to non-traditional therapy. Her tactics she used were definitely different (and probably illegal), but they always seemed to work. I also admired how dedicated she was to her clients and how much she wanted to help them. Avery came across as very smart and sophisticated.
Trigger warnings for The Golden Couple include infidelity, profanity, alcohol use, some violence, gun violence, death, and murder.
Overall, The Golden Couple is a highly entertaining read that you will not want to put down. It will leave you guessing until the very end. I would definitely recommend The Golden Couple by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen to those aged 18+ who are after a fantastic thriller that will stay with them for awhile.
--
(A special thank you to Netgalley and St. Martin's Press for providing me with an ARC eBook of The Golden Couple by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.)
Charmed & Dangerous
10.0
Rate It
Book
Magic takes many forms. From malignant hexes to love charms gone amok, you’ll find a vast array of...
Urban Fantasy Paranormal MM Romance
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The French Dispatch (2021) in Movies
Jan 4, 2022
Weak Stories Can't Support the STUNNING Visuals
Filmmaker Wes Anderson is an acquired taste. He is one of the most visually stunning filmmakers working today, but his films are often time difficult to grasp and can get lost in their own weirdness.
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Mar 4, 2018
Groundbreaking Special Effects (1 more)
Music
Truly...a masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Jul 4, 2018
A Masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Rainy Dog (1997) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Rainy Dog introduces us to Yuuji, a yakuza hitman who lives in Taiwan. He mentions later on in the film that his grandma always told him that going out in the rain was bad luck and that couldn't be more true. Not too long after he received word from his brother that a hit was put on his former boss and was killed recently, a woman comes busting into his house while he's sleeping. She's brought a little mute boy named Ah Chen with her who she says is his son. She's taken care of him up until this point and he is now Yuuji's responsibility. Yuuji pretty much ignores Ah Chen and continues to carry out hits to pay the bills and even goes to a whore house while Ah Chen tags along every step of the way. When the prostitute(Lily) he'd been spending time with says she'd like to go somewhere where it doesn't rain, Yuuji takes it a little too seriously and kills the wrong people in order to get a little extra cash. Now, trying to stay one step ahead of the boss he was working for in Taiwan and his men, Yuuji tries to get Lily and Ah Chen out of town but doesn't count on bonding with a prostitute and a mute to become a dysfunctional family of sorts.
Rainy Dog is part of Takashi Miike's Black Society Trilogy. Shinjuku Triad Society, Rainy Dog, and Ley Lines make up the entire trilogy. The main reason I'm writing this review is because if you're familiar with any of Miike's former works, then you're probably expecting the black humor, crazy sex, and over the top violence and gore you may have seen in films like Ichi the Killer, Visitor Q, or Audition. Well, this has none of that. Rainy Dog is still dark and has a great sense of atmosphere, but has none of the things you may have thought were signature of a Miike film. The heavy rain may not sound like a lot on paper, but its presence throughout the film adds more to the overall feel of the movie than you may think. This is a crime drama and while it could have still very easily attained that R rating, it still doesn't show a whole lot. It's actually what it doesn't show that helps get the point across. Sometimes it's just better to let the viewer use their imagination.
I'm a fan of Miike's work. I really am. I'm hearing this is the best of the Black Society Trilogy though and if that's the case, then I'm going to be a little disappointed. I enjoyed Rainy Dog, but I felt there was room for improvement since it did seem to drag in certain scenes. This is actually a more character driven effort with drama and heartfelt scenes, scenes you'd never think you'd see in a Miike film, and I'm all for the unexpected. Maybe I was just a little letdown though as I do like the over the top violence Miike is known best for.
Rainy Dog is not a bad film, by any means. In fact, I'd recommend seeing it. I actually heard people comparing it to Unforgiven and Leon the Professional, so you'll probably like this if you enjoyed either of those films. Some fans say this is in Miike's top three best films of all time. I wouldn't go that far, but it's definitely worth renting or owning if you like crime films.
Do you remember that line from Kill Bill Vol. 1 that went something like this:
"It was not my intention to do this in front of you. For that, I'm sorry. But you can take my word for it, your mother had it coming. When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I'll be waiting." ?
It feels like it's an homage to this movie as there's a line almost identical to it:
"Grow up. Then come and kill me. I'll be waiting for you."
Rainy Dog is part of Takashi Miike's Black Society Trilogy. Shinjuku Triad Society, Rainy Dog, and Ley Lines make up the entire trilogy. The main reason I'm writing this review is because if you're familiar with any of Miike's former works, then you're probably expecting the black humor, crazy sex, and over the top violence and gore you may have seen in films like Ichi the Killer, Visitor Q, or Audition. Well, this has none of that. Rainy Dog is still dark and has a great sense of atmosphere, but has none of the things you may have thought were signature of a Miike film. The heavy rain may not sound like a lot on paper, but its presence throughout the film adds more to the overall feel of the movie than you may think. This is a crime drama and while it could have still very easily attained that R rating, it still doesn't show a whole lot. It's actually what it doesn't show that helps get the point across. Sometimes it's just better to let the viewer use their imagination.
I'm a fan of Miike's work. I really am. I'm hearing this is the best of the Black Society Trilogy though and if that's the case, then I'm going to be a little disappointed. I enjoyed Rainy Dog, but I felt there was room for improvement since it did seem to drag in certain scenes. This is actually a more character driven effort with drama and heartfelt scenes, scenes you'd never think you'd see in a Miike film, and I'm all for the unexpected. Maybe I was just a little letdown though as I do like the over the top violence Miike is known best for.
Rainy Dog is not a bad film, by any means. In fact, I'd recommend seeing it. I actually heard people comparing it to Unforgiven and Leon the Professional, so you'll probably like this if you enjoyed either of those films. Some fans say this is in Miike's top three best films of all time. I wouldn't go that far, but it's definitely worth renting or owning if you like crime films.
Do you remember that line from Kill Bill Vol. 1 that went something like this:
"It was not my intention to do this in front of you. For that, I'm sorry. But you can take my word for it, your mother had it coming. When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I'll be waiting." ?
It feels like it's an homage to this movie as there's a line almost identical to it:
"Grow up. Then come and kill me. I'll be waiting for you."
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Adapting Stephen King stories for the screen has long been a difficult problem for Hollywood. For every “Misery” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, there are many others such as “The Mangler”, “Cell”, “and Graveyard Shift” and many more where things did not go as planned.
The big issue is that King often creates detailed characters with complex backstories and puts then in fully developed worlds that despite their supernatural nature, often are easy for readers to relate to.
Also as any reader of his books knows, King is not one to spare the paper and his books can be very lengthy offerings. This is an issue for Hollywood as they are forced to condense a 400-800 page plus story in many cases to fewer than two hours of screen time. The solution has been to try television movies such as “The Langoliers”, “The Tommyknockers”, “The Stand”, and “It”. The problem with this format is that while spreading the story over multiple nights allows more time for the story, they gore and adult content which is often the core of the story has to be greatly watered down.
Which brings us to “The Dark Tower”, an adaptation of King’s largest offering as the series covers seven books and a novella, not to mention a Prequel comic and more. The series rolled out from 1982-2004 with King often saying that he might never finish the series. Fortunately for fans he released three books from 2003-2004 and was able to declare the story told.
The story tells of a world like ours, but different that has “moved on”. It is a dying world where Roland (Idris Elba), is pursuing a wizard named Walter (Matthew McConaughey), who is responsible for laying waste the world and killing all that come into Roland’s life. The books follow his unrelenting chase of The Man in Black over countless years and how he has become a cold and driven individual who thinks nothing of using people to get his revenge.
Roland is the last of the “Gunslingers”, a Knight like group who protected the world and who used guns that were rare in their world to keep the peace. Roland is highly skilled and unlike his now dead companions, is impervious to the magic of Walter which has allowed him to remain alive and continue his quest.
The Man in Black is fixated on destroying the Dark Tower, which protects the many worlds in the universe from the outside evils that look to destroy it. Along with a young boy from Earth named Jake (Tom Taylor), Roland must find a way to save the universe and exact his revenge.
The film keeps the conflict between Roland and The Man in Black but greatly condenses the story as it includes references to things in the first two books but omits much of the backstory and plot of the novels to tell what I would call a story that was inspired by, but not based on the books.
This is at the core the biggest issue with the film. I have read the books and while I wanted an adaptation that was closer to them, I did find myself enjoying the film more than I expected to. The leads were very good and even though they had a very watered down script to work with, they did a good job and the finale does have some nice visuals and action to it.
People I know who have read the books have naturally been very disappointed with the film but those who have not read the books have mentioned that they enjoyed the film and accepted it as a fun bit of escapist adventure.
There has been talk of a television series that would focus more on the third book onward which hopefully would include how Roland gained new followers from our world who were trained to be future Gunslingers. That remains to be seen as the success of the film will likely hold the key. I hope we do get to see it as there are countless stories and characters yet to tell in this universe and I think fans deserve to see them as King wrote them.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower/
The big issue is that King often creates detailed characters with complex backstories and puts then in fully developed worlds that despite their supernatural nature, often are easy for readers to relate to.
Also as any reader of his books knows, King is not one to spare the paper and his books can be very lengthy offerings. This is an issue for Hollywood as they are forced to condense a 400-800 page plus story in many cases to fewer than two hours of screen time. The solution has been to try television movies such as “The Langoliers”, “The Tommyknockers”, “The Stand”, and “It”. The problem with this format is that while spreading the story over multiple nights allows more time for the story, they gore and adult content which is often the core of the story has to be greatly watered down.
Which brings us to “The Dark Tower”, an adaptation of King’s largest offering as the series covers seven books and a novella, not to mention a Prequel comic and more. The series rolled out from 1982-2004 with King often saying that he might never finish the series. Fortunately for fans he released three books from 2003-2004 and was able to declare the story told.
The story tells of a world like ours, but different that has “moved on”. It is a dying world where Roland (Idris Elba), is pursuing a wizard named Walter (Matthew McConaughey), who is responsible for laying waste the world and killing all that come into Roland’s life. The books follow his unrelenting chase of The Man in Black over countless years and how he has become a cold and driven individual who thinks nothing of using people to get his revenge.
Roland is the last of the “Gunslingers”, a Knight like group who protected the world and who used guns that were rare in their world to keep the peace. Roland is highly skilled and unlike his now dead companions, is impervious to the magic of Walter which has allowed him to remain alive and continue his quest.
The Man in Black is fixated on destroying the Dark Tower, which protects the many worlds in the universe from the outside evils that look to destroy it. Along with a young boy from Earth named Jake (Tom Taylor), Roland must find a way to save the universe and exact his revenge.
The film keeps the conflict between Roland and The Man in Black but greatly condenses the story as it includes references to things in the first two books but omits much of the backstory and plot of the novels to tell what I would call a story that was inspired by, but not based on the books.
This is at the core the biggest issue with the film. I have read the books and while I wanted an adaptation that was closer to them, I did find myself enjoying the film more than I expected to. The leads were very good and even though they had a very watered down script to work with, they did a good job and the finale does have some nice visuals and action to it.
People I know who have read the books have naturally been very disappointed with the film but those who have not read the books have mentioned that they enjoyed the film and accepted it as a fun bit of escapist adventure.
There has been talk of a television series that would focus more on the third book onward which hopefully would include how Roland gained new followers from our world who were trained to be future Gunslingers. That remains to be seen as the success of the film will likely hold the key. I hope we do get to see it as there are countless stories and characters yet to tell in this universe and I think fans deserve to see them as King wrote them.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A patronising mess of a film
If you want to learn how to completely and utterly fail at satire, look no further than Adam McKay’s Vice. It honestly does pain me to say this was one of the worst experiences I’ve ever had in the cinema. As a matter of fact, I was seconds away from walking out at one point. But, like any good critic, I stayed in my seat. I hoped and prayed it would get better… but it didn’t. If anything, it snowballed.
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bewitched (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Turning a classic television series into a feature film can be a risky proposition. While the built in audience of Baby Boomers and new fans of a show gained through reruns make remakes a potentially lucrative venture, the task of recasting classic characters and modernizing the story to today’s audiences is rife with hazards.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.