Search
Search results
Fieldrunners 2 for iPad
Games and Entertainment
App
OVERVIEW The fieldrunners are back! With legions of soldiers and a gaggle of new tricks, they’re...
Gangstar: Miami Vindication HD
Games
App
Enjoy the most immersive full-3D crime simulation ever on iPhone/iPod touch! Gangstar: Miami...
Empires & Allies
Games
App
Get ready to annihilate the enemy! Join your friends, form alliances, build your army and prepare...
Modern Combat 2: Black Pegasus
Games
App
Modern Combat 3: Fallen Nation is coming this fall! Watch the exclusive trailer on YouTube :...
Mad Skills BMX
Games and Sports
App
CLEAR YOUR SCHEDULE: MAD SKILLS BMX IS OUT! Updated to make full use of the iPhone 5 screen. The...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018
Good start to the DARK KNIGHT trilogy
BATMAN BEGINS is a seminal film in the oeuvre of Christopher Nolan for a variety of reasons. Certainly, it became his biggest Box Office success to date and marked him as an "A" list Director. Also, you start seeing the recurring actors that I call "the Nolan players" in his films - Michael Caine, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe. But, most importantly, BATMAN BEGINS starts showing the Hallmarks of what a "Christopher Nolan" film is.
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated India Black (Madam of Espionage, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b>3.5 stars</b>
<b>India Black</b> is a well-written and entertaining read, featuring a no-nonsense, street-wise, and book-smart whore-turned-madam who is the namesake of the book. While I do like India and her voice, there was something about her that felt off, and after thinking about it I've come to realize that I really don't know her that well. I find that odd because the book is told first-person. Even though this is the first in the series and some authors may not want to divulge everything about a character, I think there needed to be more tidbits about India. What's her history? How did she grow up? Was she groomed to be a whore? Etc., etc., etc. Besides, French is the secretive one, we don't need two mysterious characters in one book. As for the attraction between India and French promised on the back of the book, well, it wasn't there. Now there's the promise for that in the future, but there weren't enough scenes with the two of them together for anything to actually happen except some minor discussions about the issue(s) at hand, some bantering, and a decent amount of bickering -- though luckily not too much of the latter to annoy.
The plot is fine, but there's really nothing new to distinguish it from others in Victorian mysteries. Actually, the book doesn't feature any mystery what-so-ever and it's more of a chase to retrieve top secret government documents; I've heard the term caper thrown around and that sounds about right for this book. After a while I felt like I was in <b>Groundhog Day</b> -- same scenarios popped up under different circumstances, but all with the same outcome, which became tiring. The historical facts would have been better served had they been more smoothly incorporated into the story rather than dropped in big chunky lumps that often bored me (and I <i>like</i> history). The atmosphere of the book was fairly well-done, though it seemed a bit too polished and clean, so a little more grit would have given it some needed realism. The main character is a madam who can't possibly live in best neighborhood, and no matter how well-mannered, groomed, or intelligent she may be, she has to live in a tough place.
While I do have those minor issues about the book, the question is, <i>"Would I read the next book in the series?"</i> Yes, I believe so, because overall, I did enjoy this foray into India Black's world and it has the makings of a very interesting series.
<b>India Black</b> is a well-written and entertaining read, featuring a no-nonsense, street-wise, and book-smart whore-turned-madam who is the namesake of the book. While I do like India and her voice, there was something about her that felt off, and after thinking about it I've come to realize that I really don't know her that well. I find that odd because the book is told first-person. Even though this is the first in the series and some authors may not want to divulge everything about a character, I think there needed to be more tidbits about India. What's her history? How did she grow up? Was she groomed to be a whore? Etc., etc., etc. Besides, French is the secretive one, we don't need two mysterious characters in one book. As for the attraction between India and French promised on the back of the book, well, it wasn't there. Now there's the promise for that in the future, but there weren't enough scenes with the two of them together for anything to actually happen except some minor discussions about the issue(s) at hand, some bantering, and a decent amount of bickering -- though luckily not too much of the latter to annoy.
The plot is fine, but there's really nothing new to distinguish it from others in Victorian mysteries. Actually, the book doesn't feature any mystery what-so-ever and it's more of a chase to retrieve top secret government documents; I've heard the term caper thrown around and that sounds about right for this book. After a while I felt like I was in <b>Groundhog Day</b> -- same scenarios popped up under different circumstances, but all with the same outcome, which became tiring. The historical facts would have been better served had they been more smoothly incorporated into the story rather than dropped in big chunky lumps that often bored me (and I <i>like</i> history). The atmosphere of the book was fairly well-done, though it seemed a bit too polished and clean, so a little more grit would have given it some needed realism. The main character is a madam who can't possibly live in best neighborhood, and no matter how well-mannered, groomed, or intelligent she may be, she has to live in a tough place.
While I do have those minor issues about the book, the question is, <i>"Would I read the next book in the series?"</i> Yes, I believe so, because overall, I did enjoy this foray into India Black's world and it has the makings of a very interesting series.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Girl with the Lower Back Tattoo in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Amy Schumer's book comes out at a time when it seems like every celebrity in the world has a book out: some collection of essays about their life, showcasing how funny they are and what their life is like as a celebrity. In Schumer's, we hear about her life from childhood to her post <i>Trainwreck</i> success and nearly everything in between: her friendships, her relationships, her parents, and her growth as a comedian. And, of course, a lot about sex. The book is told in a series of chapters - essays if you will - each one covering a particular moment in Schumer's life. They don't go in any particular order, but cover the gamut of her range of experiences.
I found this book to be a refreshing and engaging celebrity book. It carried a surprising depth. I don't know a ton about Schumer, but loved <i>Trainwreck</i> and have had a crush on her for ages. That crush has only intensified upon reading her book, as I discovered several similarities between us: introverts who love hotdogs and have complicated relationships with their mothers, who both internalize stress to the point where it makes us sick. We're a match made in heaven! But, seriously, Schumer is an excellent writer, and her book is an easy read, with well-written and wonderful essays that range from humorous to serious (and often both).
Her book avoided all of my usual celebrity autobiography/memoir/essay pet peeves. In this book, we really learn about Schumer, instead of just a few token stories. I was fascinated to hear about her career trajectory: you get a great look into how hard she worked in her early years as a comedian. In addition, we actually get a lot of insight into her early life-- her childhood and teenage years. What I love is that she comes across as a real human being, instead of giving us a book that is simply full of polished, trite jokes and well-worn stories.
In fact, while parts of the book make you laugh out loud, other places make you empathize with Schumer. The book is funny, but not too funny or fake funny. And it's serious without preaching. She covers topics such as sexual assault, gun control, her father's MS, her relationship with her parents, and other serious childhood experiences that molded her, with a realism that is refreshing. Sure, there are a few "woe is me" moments about how hard it is to be a celebrity, or what it's like to have money, but they are few and far between. By the end, I admired Amy even more as a person and a comedian, and my crush will continue on stronger than ever.
I found this book to be a refreshing and engaging celebrity book. It carried a surprising depth. I don't know a ton about Schumer, but loved <i>Trainwreck</i> and have had a crush on her for ages. That crush has only intensified upon reading her book, as I discovered several similarities between us: introverts who love hotdogs and have complicated relationships with their mothers, who both internalize stress to the point where it makes us sick. We're a match made in heaven! But, seriously, Schumer is an excellent writer, and her book is an easy read, with well-written and wonderful essays that range from humorous to serious (and often both).
Her book avoided all of my usual celebrity autobiography/memoir/essay pet peeves. In this book, we really learn about Schumer, instead of just a few token stories. I was fascinated to hear about her career trajectory: you get a great look into how hard she worked in her early years as a comedian. In addition, we actually get a lot of insight into her early life-- her childhood and teenage years. What I love is that she comes across as a real human being, instead of giving us a book that is simply full of polished, trite jokes and well-worn stories.
In fact, while parts of the book make you laugh out loud, other places make you empathize with Schumer. The book is funny, but not too funny or fake funny. And it's serious without preaching. She covers topics such as sexual assault, gun control, her father's MS, her relationship with her parents, and other serious childhood experiences that molded her, with a realism that is refreshing. Sure, there are a few "woe is me" moments about how hard it is to be a celebrity, or what it's like to have money, but they are few and far between. By the end, I admired Amy even more as a person and a comedian, and my crush will continue on stronger than ever.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Chalk Man in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Big thanks to Janel @ Keeper of Pages for sending me her copy of the book!
This is one of those books that’s been getting a lot of attention in the bookish world, so of course, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about! While it only took me a couple of sessions to get through the whole thing, I wasn’t that thrilled by it. The hype wasn’t worth it for me.
I immediately knew this novel wasn’t going to be a 5 star read because I didn’t like the way it was written from page 1. It’s one of those novels that’s told in flashbacks, but rather than transporting us back in time to live the events as they happened, we were told it as though we were being read a story. I feel like this way of writing really makes you take a step back from the events and you don’t get the chance to experience them along with the characters. So anything that’s meant to be tense or exciting didn’t feel that way for me.
As for characters, I honestly didn’t have an opinion on any of them. You would have thought that our main character / narrator Eddie would have left some kind of impression on me, but he didn’t. I genuinely have nothing to say about him… he was unforgettable. The only thing I can think to mention is that his relationship with his housemate Chloe seriously cringy.
<spoiler>For me, there were too many characters in this book that were irrelevant. Including Mr. Halloran – “The Chalk Man”. He was literally only a character to make the title make sense and to have an extremely obvious ‘distraction’ to the real bad guy.</spoiler>
I didn’t mind the story in this one, but the synopsis had me ready for something so much more exciting and sinister. It kept me interested for the most part, but I wasn’t enthralled. I had the ‘baddie’ sussed in a matter of chapters, so from there, all I was trying to work out was their motive. It was pretty good at keeping you on your toes in that sense.
Some books try so hard to be exciting and this is one of them. It seemed to me, that each chapter had new drama in it. Less is sometimes more! Don’t forget that! We don’t need drama, after drama, after drama to keep us entertained. It got tedious and took any realism away from the story.
In the end, this novel was extremely underwhelming for me. I didn’t find it exciting and I didn’t think the story was particularly unique. I think this would be a good novel for non-mystery readers, but I’ve just read too many similar stories.
This is one of those books that’s been getting a lot of attention in the bookish world, so of course, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about! While it only took me a couple of sessions to get through the whole thing, I wasn’t that thrilled by it. The hype wasn’t worth it for me.
I immediately knew this novel wasn’t going to be a 5 star read because I didn’t like the way it was written from page 1. It’s one of those novels that’s told in flashbacks, but rather than transporting us back in time to live the events as they happened, we were told it as though we were being read a story. I feel like this way of writing really makes you take a step back from the events and you don’t get the chance to experience them along with the characters. So anything that’s meant to be tense or exciting didn’t feel that way for me.
As for characters, I honestly didn’t have an opinion on any of them. You would have thought that our main character / narrator Eddie would have left some kind of impression on me, but he didn’t. I genuinely have nothing to say about him… he was unforgettable. The only thing I can think to mention is that his relationship with his housemate Chloe seriously cringy.
<spoiler>For me, there were too many characters in this book that were irrelevant. Including Mr. Halloran – “The Chalk Man”. He was literally only a character to make the title make sense and to have an extremely obvious ‘distraction’ to the real bad guy.</spoiler>
I didn’t mind the story in this one, but the synopsis had me ready for something so much more exciting and sinister. It kept me interested for the most part, but I wasn’t enthralled. I had the ‘baddie’ sussed in a matter of chapters, so from there, all I was trying to work out was their motive. It was pretty good at keeping you on your toes in that sense.
Some books try so hard to be exciting and this is one of them. It seemed to me, that each chapter had new drama in it. Less is sometimes more! Don’t forget that! We don’t need drama, after drama, after drama to keep us entertained. It got tedious and took any realism away from the story.
In the end, this novel was extremely underwhelming for me. I didn’t find it exciting and I didn’t think the story was particularly unique. I think this would be a good novel for non-mystery readers, but I’ve just read too many similar stories.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Braveheart (1995) in Movies
Jul 28, 2018
Epic
The Story of Scottish Patriot William Wallace (Mel Gibson) and his quest to unite the clans and rise up against their English oppressors.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to a hot start by immediately drawing you into the story. Once the camera pans into the hut with all of the hanging bodies, they had my attention right away. The sheer intrigue was enough to make me want to see more.
Characters: 10
The Scots are a crazy bunch and I LOVE them. Whether old or young, they're all tough guys in their own right. One crazy person is enough to make a film interesting, but you put a bunch of them together and now you're really cooking with fire. William Wallace, of course, takes the cake of all the crazies. His character is easily one of my all-time favorite protagonists from his demeanor to the strong message he carries.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You kind of cheat when you shoot a film in Scotland, let's be honest. Beautiful landscapes abound, filled with mountains and lush valleys. I got lost watching William Wallace ride through the countryside on horseback. Made me think, "Damn, am I taking enough vacations?"
It's not the landscapes, however, as the battles are epic and sprawling. You get a taste of a bit of blood or something gory right before it cuts to a new fight. Seeing a fight that probably took hours abbreviated into a couple minutes is jarring and effective. These are some of the best battles captured on film.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 7
Memorability: 8
Braveheart is a film that easily stands the test of time. The brotherhood of the clans alone is memorable in and of itself. These are guys that lay down their lives for each other to advance their nation. The battles that ensue as a result of the stand that these men take are sheer inspiration. "They can take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"
Pace: 10
While the film slows down just slightly after the opening scenes, once the fighting starts, things move forward at a breakneck pace. It drives you from one scene to the next with intensity and passion. Just when you think you've had enough action, you're graced with more! Very solid pace.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
The ending was a bit deflating, at least for my taste. I respected the realism, but it felt counterintuitive to what the rest of the film was accomplishing. Not horrible, but perhaps a different approach would warrant a better score.
Overall: 90
I never had any interest whatsoever to watch this film and, after finally seeing it, I can't believe I waited this long. Such an inspirational, all-time classic. Loved it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to a hot start by immediately drawing you into the story. Once the camera pans into the hut with all of the hanging bodies, they had my attention right away. The sheer intrigue was enough to make me want to see more.
Characters: 10
The Scots are a crazy bunch and I LOVE them. Whether old or young, they're all tough guys in their own right. One crazy person is enough to make a film interesting, but you put a bunch of them together and now you're really cooking with fire. William Wallace, of course, takes the cake of all the crazies. His character is easily one of my all-time favorite protagonists from his demeanor to the strong message he carries.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You kind of cheat when you shoot a film in Scotland, let's be honest. Beautiful landscapes abound, filled with mountains and lush valleys. I got lost watching William Wallace ride through the countryside on horseback. Made me think, "Damn, am I taking enough vacations?"
It's not the landscapes, however, as the battles are epic and sprawling. You get a taste of a bit of blood or something gory right before it cuts to a new fight. Seeing a fight that probably took hours abbreviated into a couple minutes is jarring and effective. These are some of the best battles captured on film.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 7
Memorability: 8
Braveheart is a film that easily stands the test of time. The brotherhood of the clans alone is memorable in and of itself. These are guys that lay down their lives for each other to advance their nation. The battles that ensue as a result of the stand that these men take are sheer inspiration. "They can take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"
Pace: 10
While the film slows down just slightly after the opening scenes, once the fighting starts, things move forward at a breakneck pace. It drives you from one scene to the next with intensity and passion. Just when you think you've had enough action, you're graced with more! Very solid pace.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
The ending was a bit deflating, at least for my taste. I respected the realism, but it felt counterintuitive to what the rest of the film was accomplishing. Not horrible, but perhaps a different approach would warrant a better score.
Overall: 90
I never had any interest whatsoever to watch this film and, after finally seeing it, I can't believe I waited this long. Such an inspirational, all-time classic. Loved it.