Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Holmes and Watson (2018) in Movies
Apr 27, 2020
They can't all be winners
Well...they can't all be winners.
I know that Will Ferrell is an "acquired taste" - either you like the "all in" comedy of this man, or you don't. I happen to like Ferrell, his comedy has aged on me like a fine wine. I find that some of his most recent films like THE OTHER GUYS and THE HOUSE are very funny (maybe not as funny as ANCHORMAN...but what is). I think this comedian still has his fastball.
But, sometimes, wine doesn't age well, it turns into vinegar. And for Ferrell, this vinegar is the comedic dud that is HOLMES & WATSON.
Partnering with familiar on-screen partner John C. Reilly (who paired with Ferrell in films like STEP BROTHERS and TALLEDEGA NIGHTS) this film is a parody of the multitude of Sherlock Holmes films - this time showing that not only is Holmes and idiot but so is Watson. But, somehow, they manage to solve the crime and save the day anyway.
Ferrell is (typically) over-the-top and obtuse as Holmes. Usually, this combination works for him (see ANCHORMAN) but it just falls flat here. Same thing for John C. Reilly's Watson - he is just as over-the-top and obtuse and (I think) that's the beginning of the problem here. The two just bounce off each other without the joke landing on either of them - nor does it land of the audience.
Ralph Fiennes (Moriarty), Rebecca Hall (potential girlfriend), Rob Brydon (Inspector Lestrade) and Kelly Macdonald (Mrs. Hudson) all fair poorly with poor material to work with.
Writer/Director Etan (that's Etan, not Ethan) Cohen (IDIOCRACY) does nothing to help things here with either his writing or his direction. My only thought here is that he thought that Ferrell and Reilly could improvise themselves into a good film.
It didn't happen.
Letter Grade: C (because I guffawed out loud - despite myself - a couple of times)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I know that Will Ferrell is an "acquired taste" - either you like the "all in" comedy of this man, or you don't. I happen to like Ferrell, his comedy has aged on me like a fine wine. I find that some of his most recent films like THE OTHER GUYS and THE HOUSE are very funny (maybe not as funny as ANCHORMAN...but what is). I think this comedian still has his fastball.
But, sometimes, wine doesn't age well, it turns into vinegar. And for Ferrell, this vinegar is the comedic dud that is HOLMES & WATSON.
Partnering with familiar on-screen partner John C. Reilly (who paired with Ferrell in films like STEP BROTHERS and TALLEDEGA NIGHTS) this film is a parody of the multitude of Sherlock Holmes films - this time showing that not only is Holmes and idiot but so is Watson. But, somehow, they manage to solve the crime and save the day anyway.
Ferrell is (typically) over-the-top and obtuse as Holmes. Usually, this combination works for him (see ANCHORMAN) but it just falls flat here. Same thing for John C. Reilly's Watson - he is just as over-the-top and obtuse and (I think) that's the beginning of the problem here. The two just bounce off each other without the joke landing on either of them - nor does it land of the audience.
Ralph Fiennes (Moriarty), Rebecca Hall (potential girlfriend), Rob Brydon (Inspector Lestrade) and Kelly Macdonald (Mrs. Hudson) all fair poorly with poor material to work with.
Writer/Director Etan (that's Etan, not Ethan) Cohen (IDIOCRACY) does nothing to help things here with either his writing or his direction. My only thought here is that he thought that Ferrell and Reilly could improvise themselves into a good film.
It didn't happen.
Letter Grade: C (because I guffawed out loud - despite myself - a couple of times)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Complete Cosmicomics
Italo Calvino, Tim Parks and Martin McLaughlin
Book
Italo Calvino's enchanting stories about the evolution of the universe, with characters that are...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Dreamers (2003) in Movies
Dec 3, 2020 (Updated Dec 3, 2020)
Actual lines of dialogue from this movie:
"๐ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ. ๐๐ถ๐ต ๐ช๐ง ๐ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฅ, ๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ข ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ข๐ค๐ฌ, ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ง๐ต-๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐จ๐ถ๐ช๐ต๐ข๐ณ๐ช๐ด๐ต."
"๐'๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฐ ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ด๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ [๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ]."
"๐ ๐ฐ๐ถ'๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข ๐ฃ๐ช๐จ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ท๐ช๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ง๐ง, ๐ณ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต? ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ข๐ฐ ๐ข๐ด ๐ข ๐จ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต ๐ฅ๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ... ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ท๐ช๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ข ๐ค๐ข๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฎ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด."
The far less entertaining ๐๐ณ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ญ ๐๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด meets... idek, the really long talky parts from ๐๐ฆ๐ต๐ณ๐ฐ? A woeful experience - uses a ton of intellectual jargon but says next to nothing. On the one hand, perfectly emulates this sort of 20-something who thinks they're the most original being on the planet despite being another clichรฉd story no one wants to be around... but on the other, at what cost? These people seem beyond insufferable to be around - three pretentious, odious fucks sit around drinking wine and smoking while spewing superficial first-year-film-major histrionics, jerking off, and smelling each others' underwear. Every bit as lumbering, surface-level, and pompous as that sounds. Usually I'm all for these conceited combinations of toxic people, self-destruction, and explicit sex but this is virtual parody levels of this sort of "wants to be a 70s movie really bad" cinema. Has a few good scenes that actually find a palpable mood but otherwise exists almost solely to brag about how many old movies it's seen, uses both those aforementioned films and the real life 1968 Paris riots as not much more than mere window dressing while failing to confront whatever shred of an idea it briefly poses for a scene or two. Eva Green and the dad are the only two tolerable performances. All but begs you to find it audacious and daring with a shit-eating sneer while simultaneously gutting the homosexuality from the original text so this won't steer *too* far off the hetero curve. And then it ends with a total "who cares?". Pretty but dumb. The sex stuff is kind of decent, though.
"๐ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ. ๐๐ถ๐ต ๐ช๐ง ๐ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฅ, ๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ข ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ข๐ค๐ฌ, ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ง๐ต-๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐จ๐ถ๐ช๐ต๐ข๐ณ๐ช๐ด๐ต."
"๐'๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฐ ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ด๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ [๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ]."
"๐ ๐ฐ๐ถ'๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข ๐ฃ๐ช๐จ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ท๐ช๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ง๐ง, ๐ณ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต? ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ข๐ฐ ๐ข๐ด ๐ข ๐จ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต ๐ฅ๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ... ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ท๐ช๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ข ๐ค๐ข๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฎ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด."
The far less entertaining ๐๐ณ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ญ ๐๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด meets... idek, the really long talky parts from ๐๐ฆ๐ต๐ณ๐ฐ? A woeful experience - uses a ton of intellectual jargon but says next to nothing. On the one hand, perfectly emulates this sort of 20-something who thinks they're the most original being on the planet despite being another clichรฉd story no one wants to be around... but on the other, at what cost? These people seem beyond insufferable to be around - three pretentious, odious fucks sit around drinking wine and smoking while spewing superficial first-year-film-major histrionics, jerking off, and smelling each others' underwear. Every bit as lumbering, surface-level, and pompous as that sounds. Usually I'm all for these conceited combinations of toxic people, self-destruction, and explicit sex but this is virtual parody levels of this sort of "wants to be a 70s movie really bad" cinema. Has a few good scenes that actually find a palpable mood but otherwise exists almost solely to brag about how many old movies it's seen, uses both those aforementioned films and the real life 1968 Paris riots as not much more than mere window dressing while failing to confront whatever shred of an idea it briefly poses for a scene or two. Eva Green and the dad are the only two tolerable performances. All but begs you to find it audacious and daring with a shit-eating sneer while simultaneously gutting the homosexuality from the original text so this won't steer *too* far off the hetero curve. And then it ends with a total "who cares?". Pretty but dumb. The sex stuff is kind of decent, though.
The Shelbourne Ultimatum
Book
After his brush with death Ross O'Carroll-Kelly - schools rugby legend, award-winning author and...
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Die-Fi Experiment in Books
May 16, 2018
After a run of several disappointing books, I decided to take a hot bath last night and delve into M. R. Tapiaโs novella, The Die-Fi Experiment. Like most books I read, I set a high expectation for this one in terms of gory horror. While it isnโt quite as grotesque as I might like, I find it to be a rather amusing read. On the same page in which Tapia scribes the fears many couples face, he makes a mockery of todayโs society.
As a fan of horror movies, itโs hard to find this piece of work original. Many elements within the novella are reminiscent of the Saw franchise โ all the way down to the marshmallow eye scene (which youโll encounter if you choose to read The Die-Fi Experiment). Although a few of the other scenes are cringe-worthy if you imagine yourself as the victim.
The Die-Fi Experiment goes back and forth between the not-so-distant past and present, and my largest issue therein is the fact that sometimes the tenses switch. I am aware that the present parts of the story are meant to be present tense and vice versa; however, I think it works best to choose one tense and stick with it. Otherwise things can quickly become confusing.
On Goodreads, this novella is tagged humor. Personally, I find the term โblack comedyโ more fitting. After all, viewers appear comically oblivious to the fact that what they watch live is truly torture (or perhaps theyโre particularly disturbed individuals). For a little extra splash of humor, Tapia throws in a few hashtags that serve as a parody of the tweets and instagram posts that show up throughout the novella.
Overall, I liked The Die-Fi Experiment. I donโt find it exceptional by any means, but it serves its purpose fairly well. The ending falls a bit short of my expectations, but Tapia manages to produce a piece of work that ensnares my short attention span. In fact, I read this novella in one sitting. While I likely will not read it again, this is definitely a short book for fans of Saw and other torture films.
I would like to thank M. R. Tapia for providing me with a copy of his novella free of charge in exchange for an honest review.
As a fan of horror movies, itโs hard to find this piece of work original. Many elements within the novella are reminiscent of the Saw franchise โ all the way down to the marshmallow eye scene (which youโll encounter if you choose to read The Die-Fi Experiment). Although a few of the other scenes are cringe-worthy if you imagine yourself as the victim.
The Die-Fi Experiment goes back and forth between the not-so-distant past and present, and my largest issue therein is the fact that sometimes the tenses switch. I am aware that the present parts of the story are meant to be present tense and vice versa; however, I think it works best to choose one tense and stick with it. Otherwise things can quickly become confusing.
On Goodreads, this novella is tagged humor. Personally, I find the term โblack comedyโ more fitting. After all, viewers appear comically oblivious to the fact that what they watch live is truly torture (or perhaps theyโre particularly disturbed individuals). For a little extra splash of humor, Tapia throws in a few hashtags that serve as a parody of the tweets and instagram posts that show up throughout the novella.
Overall, I liked The Die-Fi Experiment. I donโt find it exceptional by any means, but it serves its purpose fairly well. The ending falls a bit short of my expectations, but Tapia manages to produce a piece of work that ensnares my short attention span. In fact, I read this novella in one sitting. While I likely will not read it again, this is definitely a short book for fans of Saw and other torture films.
I would like to thank M. R. Tapia for providing me with a copy of his novella free of charge in exchange for an honest review.
Sudden Death
Book
"Splendid" --New York Times "Mind-bending." --Wall Street Journal "Brilliantly original. The best...
fantasy fiction
Chris Miller recommended A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies (curated)
Phil Lord recommended A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies (curated)
TacoDave (3643 KP) rated Amazon Echo Auto in Tech
Jul 19, 2019
A digital assistant on the go (4 more)
Hands-free calling
Unlimited music
Podcasts
Audiobooks
A cool Alexa device - for your car!
I was chosen to purchase a pre-release version of the Amazon Echo Auto through Amazon's website. It works just like a normal Echo, except it is designed for use in the car.
The mount for the Echo Auto is a strip of thick rubber that sticks to the dashboard and includes a magnet that keeps the Echo firmly in place.
The Echo uses bluetooth to connect to your cell phone, and can connect to your car's speakers via bluetooth or an included aux cable. It is powered by a cigarette lighter plug or USB port.
If you already have Siri or a newer car, you might have some of the Echo's features already. I drive a 2008 minivan, so the Echo actually added tons of abilities that I didn't have access to already.
For example, I can now use the Echo as a hands-free phone device. I've tried it multiple times and the sound quality is great and the person on the other end hears me fine. I can also ask Alexa to navigate to an address and, using Google Maps, hear step-by-step instructions to get where I'm going. And if I'm listening to music or a podcast, it will pause them so I can hear the voice say "In 600 feet, turn left" or whatever. And since I pay $8 a month for Amazon Music Unlimited, I can ask Alexa to play almost any song and it will instantly play in my car.
Not only that, but the "regular" features of Alexa are included. I asked "How many feet are in a mile?" and it answered (correctly). My kids have asked it what certain words mean and have asked it to tell jokes. They can play 20 Questions or Jeopardy while I'm driving. The possibilities are almost endless.
I only have one problem with the Echo Auto: it relies on a cell signal. So when I drove my daughter to camp on Sunday - way out in the middle of nowhere in the woods - I lost cell service and my music cut off suddenly. (I had asked Alexa to shuffle music from Weird Al Yankovic to keep my kids entertained, and we were enjoying it! Plus, I could ask Alexa to play the original version of a song after we heard the parody version so my kids would have context.) I understand that this is a known limitation, and since I live in a major city it won't often be a problem. But I thought I'd mention it for people who might live in places with less cell coverage.
The mount for the Echo Auto is a strip of thick rubber that sticks to the dashboard and includes a magnet that keeps the Echo firmly in place.
The Echo uses bluetooth to connect to your cell phone, and can connect to your car's speakers via bluetooth or an included aux cable. It is powered by a cigarette lighter plug or USB port.
If you already have Siri or a newer car, you might have some of the Echo's features already. I drive a 2008 minivan, so the Echo actually added tons of abilities that I didn't have access to already.
For example, I can now use the Echo as a hands-free phone device. I've tried it multiple times and the sound quality is great and the person on the other end hears me fine. I can also ask Alexa to navigate to an address and, using Google Maps, hear step-by-step instructions to get where I'm going. And if I'm listening to music or a podcast, it will pause them so I can hear the voice say "In 600 feet, turn left" or whatever. And since I pay $8 a month for Amazon Music Unlimited, I can ask Alexa to play almost any song and it will instantly play in my car.
Not only that, but the "regular" features of Alexa are included. I asked "How many feet are in a mile?" and it answered (correctly). My kids have asked it what certain words mean and have asked it to tell jokes. They can play 20 Questions or Jeopardy while I'm driving. The possibilities are almost endless.
I only have one problem with the Echo Auto: it relies on a cell signal. So when I drove my daughter to camp on Sunday - way out in the middle of nowhere in the woods - I lost cell service and my music cut off suddenly. (I had asked Alexa to shuffle music from Weird Al Yankovic to keep my kids entertained, and we were enjoying it! Plus, I could ask Alexa to play the original version of a song after we heard the parody version so my kids would have context.) I understand that this is a known limitation, and since I live in a major city it won't often be a problem. But I thought I'd mention it for people who might live in places with less cell coverage.
Darren (1599 KP) rated On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Characters โ James Bond is back, he is still a womaniser only now he doesnโt have the same spark of charisma that he had been showing in previous films, he still must go head to head with Blofeld, but he just doesnโt feel right this time around. Tracey is the Bond girl this time around, she isnโt as easy as the previous one showing a higher intelligence to stay ahead of Bond and not following the traditions that her father wants. Blofeld returns and for some reason doesnโt recognise Bond even after meeting him in the last film, so that is strange. He has a masterplan to take over the world or at least put money in his pocket, well bank account. Draco is the connection to locate Blofeld with him being Tracyโs father it also helps with the locating as part of a deal.
Performances โ George Lazenby doesnโt have the same level of charisma or charm that Sean Connery brings, this only disappoints and takes us away from the film in places. Diana Rigg does bring class the to Bond girl role, showing more commitment to this role that Lazenby. Telly Savalas struggles to step into Donald Pleasenceโs shoes in the Blofeld role almost being a parody of the character.
Story โ The story here takes James on his latest mission which is to capture Blofeld after his escape last time out, this takes him in a new direction away from the tropical islands and into the snow-covered mountain ranges as Blofeld is working on his next plan to become rich. The story is a way too long compared to previous films and does drag at times, the fact Blofeld doesnโt remember James is a big issue for me because them coming face to face was a big moment in You Only Live Twice. The highlight of the story comes from the fact we get a surprise ending which does show us that we are ready to continue the battle.
Action/Adventure โ The action is a complete mixed bag because certain fights are good, but then the horrible green screen moments just donโt work. The adventure takes James to a new location which is all we want at times.
Settings โ We are set in the Swiss Alps on top of one of the mountains which shows us a base that isnโt easy to escape from and away from the bikinis we have been seeing too often.
Scene of the Movie โ Ski escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me โ Blofeld not remember Bond.
Final Thoughts โ This is the weakest in the series to date, we just donโt get drawn in like before and the attempted new technology use only hinders the film.
Overall: Weakest Bond film to date.
Performances โ George Lazenby doesnโt have the same level of charisma or charm that Sean Connery brings, this only disappoints and takes us away from the film in places. Diana Rigg does bring class the to Bond girl role, showing more commitment to this role that Lazenby. Telly Savalas struggles to step into Donald Pleasenceโs shoes in the Blofeld role almost being a parody of the character.
Story โ The story here takes James on his latest mission which is to capture Blofeld after his escape last time out, this takes him in a new direction away from the tropical islands and into the snow-covered mountain ranges as Blofeld is working on his next plan to become rich. The story is a way too long compared to previous films and does drag at times, the fact Blofeld doesnโt remember James is a big issue for me because them coming face to face was a big moment in You Only Live Twice. The highlight of the story comes from the fact we get a surprise ending which does show us that we are ready to continue the battle.
Action/Adventure โ The action is a complete mixed bag because certain fights are good, but then the horrible green screen moments just donโt work. The adventure takes James to a new location which is all we want at times.
Settings โ We are set in the Swiss Alps on top of one of the mountains which shows us a base that isnโt easy to escape from and away from the bikinis we have been seeing too often.
Scene of the Movie โ Ski escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me โ Blofeld not remember Bond.
Final Thoughts โ This is the weakest in the series to date, we just donโt get drawn in like before and the attempted new technology use only hinders the film.
Overall: Weakest Bond film to date.