Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Well written (1 more)
Good direction
Mr Hinx (1 more)
Not enough Cristoph Waltz
As good as the last?
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Casino Royale released in 2006, it was to be a soft reboot of the franchise that showed viewers the events of Bond’s first mission and it strived to rectify some of the silly gadgets etc that were being over-used with Brosnan’s Bond. In my opinion, Casino Royale was a great film, it just wasn’t a Bond film. It done away with all of the silly gimmicks and cheesy one liners and was an introduction to a more grounded version of the iconic character, which made for a great spy thriller but not a great Bond movie. Then Quantum of Solace came out and literally nobody cared, not many people went to see it, it didn’t make much money at the box office and to this day I’ve still not seen that whole movie from start to finish and to be honest, I’m perfectly okay with that. Skyfall was the third Craig Bond movie to be released and it was a triumph. Finally Craig felt like he was actually playing Bond and not just some random hard ass military spy. It even flirted with the idea of gadgets, had a flamboyant supervillain and introduced a young, fresh faced Q, which was a nice touch. The movie ended with Silva killing Judi Dench’s M and Bond killing Silva, Ralph Fiennes was then appointed with the title of M and Naomi Harris was revealed to be the new Moneypenny. So with the last movie pleasing both long time Bond fans and newcomers alike, SPECTRE had a lot to live up to.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b><i>"What a stupid book."</i></b>
That was my initial thought after turning the final page of <b>Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later</b>.
As a pre-teen, I was addicted to the <u>Sweet Valley High</u> series, and then later, the <u>Sweet Valley University</u> series as well. Before that even, I had read some of the Twins and Kids series, so when I heard this was coming out last year, I just knew I had to read it. I was excited beyond compare and went into full geek-out mode. Where are the perfect size-six Wakefield twins, and their friends and enemies, now? What are their occupations? Who are they dating or who'd they marry? And my questions kept going on and on. What has inspired this obsession? It's not like these books were high literature, but somehow they became ingrained into my life to this very day and I cannot help but remember SVH fondly.
It is nearly impossible to review the story within the covers without spoilers, but I am going to try my darnedest. Some cursing may or may not be involved.
<b>Short synopsis</b> (snarky comments in parentheses ;P):
Jessica has betrayed Elizabeth. <i>(Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what she did. Anyone who's read the books could make an accurate guess.)</i> The Ultimate Betrayal. <i>(Oooooh!)</i> Elizabeth flees to New York. Elizabeth is a slightly sympathetic bitter victim/martyr who craves revenge throughout the book. Jessica is supposed to be a sympathetic betrayer/victim who's heartsick at destroying her sister. <i>(I don't buy it.)</i> Tons of reminiscing flashbacks ensue throughout the book, sometimes the same ones told by different characters, and take up about half of it, so there's barely any plot. Book ends with a thirteen-page <i>Where Are They Now?</i>-type epilogue that tells old fans what has happened to many major supporting characters from the original high school series. <i>(Apparently no one is allowed to be happy. And anyone you may have originally liked from SVH has turned into a big dick. WTF?)</i>
I expected to enjoy this as the usual over-the-top, soap opera stories I remember, but revamped a bit. Sadly, I was left feeling underwhelmed, disappointed, annoyed, and rather pissed off. For one thing, I could not buy the main betrayal -- <spoiler>Jessica and Todd?! In love!!?? Really? In what surreal dimension does that make any kind of sense? This broke the book for me. How can I believe anything else if this doesn't ring true. A passionate affair, sure. A one-night stand, why not? But actual 'til death do us part nonsense? Bull. Not when it's almost always been the Elizabeth and Todd, "made-for-each-other" type of thing. I actually wouldn't have minded if E & T hadn't ended up together, but for Todd to be with Jessica, that's just madness, plain and simple.</spoiler> -- it was just so unbelievable. And I mean that in a Sweet Valley way, which we all know is not steeped in any form of actual reality, so my standards are quite low and I expect the extraordinary and overwrought. So from this point on, which is within the first two chapters, I struggled, but somehow managed to read on. I admit, I gagged more than few times throughout the book. Who wouldn't when faced with passages such as this one,
<blockquote>"And what faces they were.
Gorgeous. Absolutely amazing. The kind you couldn't stop looking at. Their eyes were shades of aqua that danced in the light like shards of precious stones, oval and fringed with thick, light brown lashes long enough to cast a shadow on their cheeks. Their silky blond hair, the cascading kind, fell just below their shoulders. And to complete the perfection, their rosy lips looked as if they were penciled on. There wasn't a thing wrong with their figures, either. It was if billions of possibilities all fell together perfectly.
Twice."
-page 9/10</blockquote>
I hope you managed to hold onto your last meal. I barely did. I also had to endure "his beloved," "his love," and other similar nauseating descriptions.
This is not the PG-rated books from the past, the word "orgasm" is actually used. So is the F-bomb and other expletives. *gasp* Seriously, it does push the boundaries more than the innocent SVH series, but it's not very shocking by today's standards. Except that it does involve the Wakefield Twins, which was strange at first. Of course, current trends had to pop up, like Twitter and Facebook, Justin Timberlake and Beyonce, which always makes a book better and doesn't date it in the least. (That was heavy sarcasm in case you weren't sure.) The book does refer to some incidents and people from the SVU series, but only certain elements, otherwise it's mainly a continuation of high school and no one from the university days actually appears in the book.
Neither Elizabeth nor Jessica felt true to form, especially Jessica, and in fact, none of the characters, whether seen or just talked about, were right. Sure, some people change and some don't, but not a one was recognizable. Where did these strangers with the same names come from? Why couldn't there have been some semblance of the original shining through? Again, I have a hard time with the basis of the book, so that has severely colored my view of the entire thing, but as it stands, it was a complete waste of a good idea. I'd be willing to bet that any fan of SVH could come up with something a million times better than this dreck. Wasn't there an original ghostwriter available? You know, someone who might actually know the world and characters, and have the skill to develop them both in a believable manner?
The writing is rather clunky and purple-ly, often managing both at the same time. Redundancy abounds, editing mistakes, including wrong names and inconsistencies to previous events in SVH-iverse, and lots of use of the words "like" and "so", more-so in Jessica's narrative than anywhere else, which was really, really, so, like, irritating. Like, really. Ms. Pascal must have had a thesaurus at the ready, because there were big words awkwardly thrown into the narrative. While I appreciate authors utilizing lesser known or used words, some just don't blend well with the rest of the text and they pop-out unflatteringly. The structure needed fine-tuning and tenses were oddly used to differentiate the flashbacks from present day.
To put it succinctly, the writing isn't great and neither is the storyline, what there is of it. This was a bizarre read even by Sweet Valley standards and an insult to fans. Seriously, does Francine Pascal hate this universe and its readers? I think I'll stick to the <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/58723-sweet-valley-high">Sweet Valley High</a> series and make up my own stories about what happened afterward.
Slightly spoiler-ish lesson learned from this book:
<spoiler>Betrayal is okay as long as it's "Twu Luv."</spoiler>
Second lesson learned:
Everything always turns up fucking sunshine and roses and unicorns and lollipops for the worst person (or people) in the end.
I'd like to leave you with another winning description,
<blockquote>"There were no tears, but her mouth was twisted in a silent sob."
-page 17</blockquote>
<u>A thought a few hours after having finished this book:</u>
Maybe another "sequel" will eventually come out and it'll begin with Elizabeth waking up from the nightmare that is this book and we'll get the real ten years later story. Ahh, sweet dreams.
<u>Update: April 26, 2011:</u>
Oh yes, always good to blame the fans/readers for not liking their terrible book. By pointing out minor, petty reasons, I might add. <b>Warning:</b> book spoilers in article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/business/media/17sweet.html?_r=1
That was my initial thought after turning the final page of <b>Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later</b>.
As a pre-teen, I was addicted to the <u>Sweet Valley High</u> series, and then later, the <u>Sweet Valley University</u> series as well. Before that even, I had read some of the Twins and Kids series, so when I heard this was coming out last year, I just knew I had to read it. I was excited beyond compare and went into full geek-out mode. Where are the perfect size-six Wakefield twins, and their friends and enemies, now? What are their occupations? Who are they dating or who'd they marry? And my questions kept going on and on. What has inspired this obsession? It's not like these books were high literature, but somehow they became ingrained into my life to this very day and I cannot help but remember SVH fondly.
It is nearly impossible to review the story within the covers without spoilers, but I am going to try my darnedest. Some cursing may or may not be involved.
<b>Short synopsis</b> (snarky comments in parentheses ;P):
Jessica has betrayed Elizabeth. <i>(Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what she did. Anyone who's read the books could make an accurate guess.)</i> The Ultimate Betrayal. <i>(Oooooh!)</i> Elizabeth flees to New York. Elizabeth is a slightly sympathetic bitter victim/martyr who craves revenge throughout the book. Jessica is supposed to be a sympathetic betrayer/victim who's heartsick at destroying her sister. <i>(I don't buy it.)</i> Tons of reminiscing flashbacks ensue throughout the book, sometimes the same ones told by different characters, and take up about half of it, so there's barely any plot. Book ends with a thirteen-page <i>Where Are They Now?</i>-type epilogue that tells old fans what has happened to many major supporting characters from the original high school series. <i>(Apparently no one is allowed to be happy. And anyone you may have originally liked from SVH has turned into a big dick. WTF?)</i>
I expected to enjoy this as the usual over-the-top, soap opera stories I remember, but revamped a bit. Sadly, I was left feeling underwhelmed, disappointed, annoyed, and rather pissed off. For one thing, I could not buy the main betrayal -- <spoiler>Jessica and Todd?! In love!!?? Really? In what surreal dimension does that make any kind of sense? This broke the book for me. How can I believe anything else if this doesn't ring true. A passionate affair, sure. A one-night stand, why not? But actual 'til death do us part nonsense? Bull. Not when it's almost always been the Elizabeth and Todd, "made-for-each-other" type of thing. I actually wouldn't have minded if E & T hadn't ended up together, but for Todd to be with Jessica, that's just madness, plain and simple.</spoiler> -- it was just so unbelievable. And I mean that in a Sweet Valley way, which we all know is not steeped in any form of actual reality, so my standards are quite low and I expect the extraordinary and overwrought. So from this point on, which is within the first two chapters, I struggled, but somehow managed to read on. I admit, I gagged more than few times throughout the book. Who wouldn't when faced with passages such as this one,
<blockquote>"And what faces they were.
Gorgeous. Absolutely amazing. The kind you couldn't stop looking at. Their eyes were shades of aqua that danced in the light like shards of precious stones, oval and fringed with thick, light brown lashes long enough to cast a shadow on their cheeks. Their silky blond hair, the cascading kind, fell just below their shoulders. And to complete the perfection, their rosy lips looked as if they were penciled on. There wasn't a thing wrong with their figures, either. It was if billions of possibilities all fell together perfectly.
Twice."
-page 9/10</blockquote>
I hope you managed to hold onto your last meal. I barely did. I also had to endure "his beloved," "his love," and other similar nauseating descriptions.
This is not the PG-rated books from the past, the word "orgasm" is actually used. So is the F-bomb and other expletives. *gasp* Seriously, it does push the boundaries more than the innocent SVH series, but it's not very shocking by today's standards. Except that it does involve the Wakefield Twins, which was strange at first. Of course, current trends had to pop up, like Twitter and Facebook, Justin Timberlake and Beyonce, which always makes a book better and doesn't date it in the least. (That was heavy sarcasm in case you weren't sure.) The book does refer to some incidents and people from the SVU series, but only certain elements, otherwise it's mainly a continuation of high school and no one from the university days actually appears in the book.
Neither Elizabeth nor Jessica felt true to form, especially Jessica, and in fact, none of the characters, whether seen or just talked about, were right. Sure, some people change and some don't, but not a one was recognizable. Where did these strangers with the same names come from? Why couldn't there have been some semblance of the original shining through? Again, I have a hard time with the basis of the book, so that has severely colored my view of the entire thing, but as it stands, it was a complete waste of a good idea. I'd be willing to bet that any fan of SVH could come up with something a million times better than this dreck. Wasn't there an original ghostwriter available? You know, someone who might actually know the world and characters, and have the skill to develop them both in a believable manner?
The writing is rather clunky and purple-ly, often managing both at the same time. Redundancy abounds, editing mistakes, including wrong names and inconsistencies to previous events in SVH-iverse, and lots of use of the words "like" and "so", more-so in Jessica's narrative than anywhere else, which was really, really, so, like, irritating. Like, really. Ms. Pascal must have had a thesaurus at the ready, because there were big words awkwardly thrown into the narrative. While I appreciate authors utilizing lesser known or used words, some just don't blend well with the rest of the text and they pop-out unflatteringly. The structure needed fine-tuning and tenses were oddly used to differentiate the flashbacks from present day.
To put it succinctly, the writing isn't great and neither is the storyline, what there is of it. This was a bizarre read even by Sweet Valley standards and an insult to fans. Seriously, does Francine Pascal hate this universe and its readers? I think I'll stick to the <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/58723-sweet-valley-high">Sweet Valley High</a> series and make up my own stories about what happened afterward.
Slightly spoiler-ish lesson learned from this book:
<spoiler>Betrayal is okay as long as it's "Twu Luv."</spoiler>
Second lesson learned:
Everything always turns up fucking sunshine and roses and unicorns and lollipops for the worst person (or people) in the end.
I'd like to leave you with another winning description,
<blockquote>"There were no tears, but her mouth was twisted in a silent sob."
-page 17</blockquote>
<u>A thought a few hours after having finished this book:</u>
Maybe another "sequel" will eventually come out and it'll begin with Elizabeth waking up from the nightmare that is this book and we'll get the real ten years later story. Ahh, sweet dreams.
<u>Update: April 26, 2011:</u>
Oh yes, always good to blame the fans/readers for not liking their terrible book. By pointing out minor, petty reasons, I might add. <b>Warning:</b> book spoilers in article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/business/media/17sweet.html?_r=1
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
Jul 24, 2017
Battle Royale
Contains spoilers, click to show
This movie is amazing. I know, I’m supposed to start with an intro but this film is just too good. I knew that I would love it and that I was looking forward to it for a fairly long time, but I loved this movie in ways that I didn’t even expect to. Based on the seminal Mark Millar event comic that saw most of the Marvel comic book universe go up against each other, this movie pits the heroes of the MCU against each other, which results in an exciting battle of all of the heroes that we’ve grown to love. The film doesn’t take much else from the comic though, other than the idea of the heroes fighting one another, there is no talk of exposing secret identities here, nor is there a battle between the massive amount of combatants that there were in the comic. If someone had told me these facts before I saw the film, I would have been going into the movie on a downer, but the thing is that this movie doesn’t have to be totally faithful to the comic book to be great, which is a credit to the writers and directors of the film. Watching the film is still like watching a comic book onscreen, just not the same comic book that you have previously read, which is awesome.
The vast majority of the cast of characters that have been introduced in the MCU so far are present here, besides Thor and Hulk. I can see why they omitted these characters, as they really would have given whatever side they chose an unfair advantage. We are left with two sides, there is Team Cap, made up of Cap, Falcon, Bucky, Ant Man, Scarlett Witch and Hawkeye and then there is Team Stark, made up of Iron Man, Vision, Black Widow, War Machine, Black Panther and Spiderman. I went into this movie siding with Team Cap, probably because Iron Man was ultimately the antagonist in the book, but as the film progressed, I have to admit that I could see either side of the argument. The fight sequences are exciting, due to the excellent stunt work and convincing use of CGI, also the acting here is surprisingly deep, especially for a Marvel movie, with several cast members giving passionate, convincing performances. While the action and humour that we have come to expect from a Marvel movie is present here, this film definitely does take on a darker tone in a few sequences and it also questions the idea of superheroes as a concept, there is not only a physical battle present in this movie, but also a psychological one as well as a socio-political one.
The score is used well, there is actually not too many songs present and the score is mostly made up of orchestral instrumental pieces, which also tells you something about the tone of this movie in comparison with previous Marvel films. The editing is also good, snappy enough to keep a consistent pace, while being clear enough to still tell a comprehensible, cohesive story.
Okay it is becoming difficult to continue writing this review without spoiling the movie, so I’ll do a quick summary then I will delve into spoiler territory. This is probably the best Marvel movie to date. It works as a sequel to Captain America Winter Soldier, it works as an ensemble Avengers piece, it works as a sufficient introduction to several new characters and it also blends the more serious tone of previous Cap movies with the more light hearted tone we have previously seen in the Avengers movies. It is a well told, tightly woven story, that still feels large in scope, which is not an easy thing to achieve, *coughs* Batman V Superman, *coughs.* While it’s not what I expected to get when they told us they were making Civil War, it is still a fantastic comic book movie, 9/10.
Okay, spoiler time. This movie came out in the UK a week before it did in America, so I have had the opportunity to see it twice so far. However, I am very aware that this movie isn’t opening in America until May 5th, so I do want to make it very clear that if you haven’t seen the film yet, you really should before reading the rest of this review.
They absolutely nail Spiderman here, in every way. He is the most faithful adaption we have had on the big screen to date, Tom Holland was the perfect choice and it there is no doubt that this young actor clearly has a very bright future ahead of him. Aunt May is played by Marisa Tomei in the film and because she is so young compared to comic book Aunt May, I did initially have my doubts, but she also nails the small role that she has here. The suit is also awesome and after seeing Civil War, I honestly cannot wait for Spiderman: Homecoming. Black Panther is another new character that they introduce and do a good job with, they establish him quickly and clearly and from the get go, we understand this character and his motivations for feeling the ways that he does. The other surprise star of the film is Ant Man, who for the first time onscreen, becomes Giant Man and it is epic. This would have been so easy to make cheesy and just have it not work at all, but here it is convincing and very well implemented into the airport battle. The CGI during this scene is also fantastic. The airport scene is also a highlight of the movie, to see all of these characters onscreen together is truly amazing and as comic book fan I was in heaven. I still can’t believe that we got to see Spiderman making a Star Wars reference, whilst he was swinging around Giant Man, the nerd part of my brain went into overload and I physically couldn’t wipe off the massive, stupid grin that was on my face. The final battle is also pretty cool.
The third act starts off with Tony Stark deciding that he may be wrong about Bucky and that it wasn’t him who set off the bomb in Wakanda, so he, Bucky and Cap team up again to go and confront Zemo, but then the three are shown a CCTV tape from one of Bucky’s past missions, which reveals that it was in fact Bucky that killed Tony’s parents when he was being mind controlled and that Cap knew about this the whole time. This results in Tony being overcome with rage and attacking Cap and Bucky, during the fight he rips off Bucky’s robot arm, but Cap manages to overpower him and he sticks his shield through Tony’s ark reactor, shutting down his suit. We then learn that Black Panther has followed Tony and intends to kill Bucky for setting off the bomb that killed his father, but when he learns that Zemo was behind it, he confronts him and demands an explanation. Zemo tells him that his family were killed when Ultron attacked Sekovia and that he has planned to destroy the Avengers ever since, but because he knew he couldn’t take them down himself, he decided to instead pit them against each other and let them kill one another. Panther then decides that he is sick of seeing people being consumed by revenge and decides to let Zemo live, but Zemo attempts to kill himself anyway, before Panther stops him, telling him that he must remain alive to answer for his crimes. After their fight, Stark tells Cap that he doesn’t deserve his shield, and so Cap drops his shield and helps Bucky out of the bunker. The movie ends with Cap busting his teammates out of prison, where they were put after the airport battle and going into hiding in Black Panther’s mansion house in Wakanda. While the movie is fairly long I did feel that it could have went on a while longer, it’s almost as if the films are at a point now where they know they are going to continue the story in a few months, so they don’t even bother writing a proper ending for the films. This is the only criticism that I have though and like I said we will be getting another Marvel movie in a few months anyway so it doesn’t really matter how this one ends. So yeah, best Marvel movie so far and whether you are a comic book fan or not, this is a damn good time.
The vast majority of the cast of characters that have been introduced in the MCU so far are present here, besides Thor and Hulk. I can see why they omitted these characters, as they really would have given whatever side they chose an unfair advantage. We are left with two sides, there is Team Cap, made up of Cap, Falcon, Bucky, Ant Man, Scarlett Witch and Hawkeye and then there is Team Stark, made up of Iron Man, Vision, Black Widow, War Machine, Black Panther and Spiderman. I went into this movie siding with Team Cap, probably because Iron Man was ultimately the antagonist in the book, but as the film progressed, I have to admit that I could see either side of the argument. The fight sequences are exciting, due to the excellent stunt work and convincing use of CGI, also the acting here is surprisingly deep, especially for a Marvel movie, with several cast members giving passionate, convincing performances. While the action and humour that we have come to expect from a Marvel movie is present here, this film definitely does take on a darker tone in a few sequences and it also questions the idea of superheroes as a concept, there is not only a physical battle present in this movie, but also a psychological one as well as a socio-political one.
The score is used well, there is actually not too many songs present and the score is mostly made up of orchestral instrumental pieces, which also tells you something about the tone of this movie in comparison with previous Marvel films. The editing is also good, snappy enough to keep a consistent pace, while being clear enough to still tell a comprehensible, cohesive story.
Okay it is becoming difficult to continue writing this review without spoiling the movie, so I’ll do a quick summary then I will delve into spoiler territory. This is probably the best Marvel movie to date. It works as a sequel to Captain America Winter Soldier, it works as an ensemble Avengers piece, it works as a sufficient introduction to several new characters and it also blends the more serious tone of previous Cap movies with the more light hearted tone we have previously seen in the Avengers movies. It is a well told, tightly woven story, that still feels large in scope, which is not an easy thing to achieve, *coughs* Batman V Superman, *coughs.* While it’s not what I expected to get when they told us they were making Civil War, it is still a fantastic comic book movie, 9/10.
Okay, spoiler time. This movie came out in the UK a week before it did in America, so I have had the opportunity to see it twice so far. However, I am very aware that this movie isn’t opening in America until May 5th, so I do want to make it very clear that if you haven’t seen the film yet, you really should before reading the rest of this review.
They absolutely nail Spiderman here, in every way. He is the most faithful adaption we have had on the big screen to date, Tom Holland was the perfect choice and it there is no doubt that this young actor clearly has a very bright future ahead of him. Aunt May is played by Marisa Tomei in the film and because she is so young compared to comic book Aunt May, I did initially have my doubts, but she also nails the small role that she has here. The suit is also awesome and after seeing Civil War, I honestly cannot wait for Spiderman: Homecoming. Black Panther is another new character that they introduce and do a good job with, they establish him quickly and clearly and from the get go, we understand this character and his motivations for feeling the ways that he does. The other surprise star of the film is Ant Man, who for the first time onscreen, becomes Giant Man and it is epic. This would have been so easy to make cheesy and just have it not work at all, but here it is convincing and very well implemented into the airport battle. The CGI during this scene is also fantastic. The airport scene is also a highlight of the movie, to see all of these characters onscreen together is truly amazing and as comic book fan I was in heaven. I still can’t believe that we got to see Spiderman making a Star Wars reference, whilst he was swinging around Giant Man, the nerd part of my brain went into overload and I physically couldn’t wipe off the massive, stupid grin that was on my face. The final battle is also pretty cool.
The third act starts off with Tony Stark deciding that he may be wrong about Bucky and that it wasn’t him who set off the bomb in Wakanda, so he, Bucky and Cap team up again to go and confront Zemo, but then the three are shown a CCTV tape from one of Bucky’s past missions, which reveals that it was in fact Bucky that killed Tony’s parents when he was being mind controlled and that Cap knew about this the whole time. This results in Tony being overcome with rage and attacking Cap and Bucky, during the fight he rips off Bucky’s robot arm, but Cap manages to overpower him and he sticks his shield through Tony’s ark reactor, shutting down his suit. We then learn that Black Panther has followed Tony and intends to kill Bucky for setting off the bomb that killed his father, but when he learns that Zemo was behind it, he confronts him and demands an explanation. Zemo tells him that his family were killed when Ultron attacked Sekovia and that he has planned to destroy the Avengers ever since, but because he knew he couldn’t take them down himself, he decided to instead pit them against each other and let them kill one another. Panther then decides that he is sick of seeing people being consumed by revenge and decides to let Zemo live, but Zemo attempts to kill himself anyway, before Panther stops him, telling him that he must remain alive to answer for his crimes. After their fight, Stark tells Cap that he doesn’t deserve his shield, and so Cap drops his shield and helps Bucky out of the bunker. The movie ends with Cap busting his teammates out of prison, where they were put after the airport battle and going into hiding in Black Panther’s mansion house in Wakanda. While the movie is fairly long I did feel that it could have went on a while longer, it’s almost as if the films are at a point now where they know they are going to continue the story in a few months, so they don’t even bother writing a proper ending for the films. This is the only criticism that I have though and like I said we will be getting another Marvel movie in a few months anyway so it doesn’t really matter how this one ends. So yeah, best Marvel movie so far and whether you are a comic book fan or not, this is a damn good time.