Search
Search results
Grizzly- Gay Dating & Chat
Dating, Lifestyle and Social Networking
1.0
Rate It
App
Tired of hunting for GAY GUYS on your own? Stop fantasizing about love and find it instantly on...
Ronyell (38 KP) rated Hocus Pocus (1993) in Movies
Aug 4, 2020
Three Crazy Witches Who Can Sing!
Wow! I'm actually surprised that I enjoyed this movie as much as I did! When I first heard about this movie, I was a bit intrigued about what this movie was all about. So, when I finally watched this movie, I was completely hooked! I liked the fact that the movie tackled the subject of sibling relationships and how important it is to care about your siblings, no matter how annoying they can be. This was best shown between the Sanderson Sisters, Thackery and his little sister Emily and Max and his little sister Dani. The Sanderson Sisters are like the negative side of the sibling relationship as Winifred abuses her younger sisters Mary and Sarah and wouldn't think of protecting them. Thackery and Emily are on the more positive side of the sibling relationship as Thackery truly cares about his sister Emily, although he failed to save her. And then we have Max and Dani who are in the middle as they argue with each other a lot, but they would do anything to protect each other. I also loved the way that the movie had a nice balance between horror and comedy as I laughed out loud during the Sanderson Sisters' crazy antics and yet, I was a bit scared for the children being threatened with death throughout this film. Especially during the scene where Emily, a little girl , ends up dying at the beginning of the movie. I especially loved the actors' performances in this film, with the Sanderson Sisters being the best part of the film. Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker and Kathy Najimy did a fantastic job at portraying the Sanderson Sisters as they were so hilarious and entertaining to watch! I also enjoyed Thora Birch's performance as Dani as she made Dani quite snarky yet energetic at the same time.
The only issues that I had with this film was that I felt that the protagonists were a bit too flat and I wished that they had explained the backstories of some of the characters. Even though Max and Allison were interesting characters, they weren't as entertaining as the Sanderson Sisters and the only protagonists that were pretty entertaining were Dani and Binx the Cat. Also, I would like to know how the Sanderson Sisters became witches in the first place (although it was implied that the Devil gave them their powers).
Overall, "Hocus Pocus" is a fantastic film that both children and adults will enjoy! It balances horror and humor very well and it has some of the best performances from Sarah Jessica Parker, Bette Midler and Kathy Najimy!
The only issues that I had with this film was that I felt that the protagonists were a bit too flat and I wished that they had explained the backstories of some of the characters. Even though Max and Allison were interesting characters, they weren't as entertaining as the Sanderson Sisters and the only protagonists that were pretty entertaining were Dani and Binx the Cat. Also, I would like to know how the Sanderson Sisters became witches in the first place (although it was implied that the Devil gave them their powers).
Overall, "Hocus Pocus" is a fantastic film that both children and adults will enjoy! It balances horror and humor very well and it has some of the best performances from Sarah Jessica Parker, Bette Midler and Kathy Najimy!
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Merrily We Go to Hell (1932) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020 (Updated Sep 3, 2020)
Pre-code (4 more)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Skeet Gallagher as Buck, the sidekick
Florence Britton as Charlcie, the female sidekick
Directed by female director Dorothy Arzner
Contains spoilers, click to show
It was an important movie of its time. It is a pre-code movie so it was able to get away with sins such as alcoholism and infidelity of husbands AND wives without making them pay in the end.
Sylvia Sidney plays Joan Prentice, the daughter of the president of Prentice coffee and Fredric March plays Jerry Corbett, a newspaperman who wishes to be a playwright. They meet at a society party where she is trying to ignore the advances of a very handsy older man and he is on the terrace drunk and drinking even more. She somehow finds him charming and he finds her "swell." They make a date to meet up again and romance follows. I mean, allegedly follows though it seems like a huge plot point to me what they see in each other and what kind of substance their relationship has. I've never been a very romantic person but even this seems terribly lacking to me.
Skeets Gallagher plays the sidekick Buck and he's worth his weight in gold. He a drinking buddy and scenes with him often start with the camera panning him tap dancing from behind. He's sweet, sympathetic, charming, and adorable and brings so much life to the role and film. Florence Britton plays the female sidekick to Fredric March's Jerry Corbett and is a bold lady, and kind. She and Buck are so much fun and not sloppy drunk like Corbett. I would much rather watch a movie with the two of them.
Sylvia Sidney, the female protagonist was bold and determined. After her husband cheats on her with his former wife, she goes out to have a little fun, too. She gets tired of her husband's constant drunkenness and leaves him. He seems to come to his senses at the end of the movie and goes to her. Spoiler alert: she is in the hospital having delivered their baby. He didn't know she was pregnant and only learned about the baby after reading the birth announcement in the newspaper. This is a premonition of things to come once the code comes into play as any sin must be paid for with a person's ruin or death. However, it ends on a happy note that their marriage will be better and that they are hopeful for the future.
* Watch for Cary Grant in one of his earliest roles as the male lead in the period drama play towards the end of the film.
Sylvia Sidney plays Joan Prentice, the daughter of the president of Prentice coffee and Fredric March plays Jerry Corbett, a newspaperman who wishes to be a playwright. They meet at a society party where she is trying to ignore the advances of a very handsy older man and he is on the terrace drunk and drinking even more. She somehow finds him charming and he finds her "swell." They make a date to meet up again and romance follows. I mean, allegedly follows though it seems like a huge plot point to me what they see in each other and what kind of substance their relationship has. I've never been a very romantic person but even this seems terribly lacking to me.
Skeets Gallagher plays the sidekick Buck and he's worth his weight in gold. He a drinking buddy and scenes with him often start with the camera panning him tap dancing from behind. He's sweet, sympathetic, charming, and adorable and brings so much life to the role and film. Florence Britton plays the female sidekick to Fredric March's Jerry Corbett and is a bold lady, and kind. She and Buck are so much fun and not sloppy drunk like Corbett. I would much rather watch a movie with the two of them.
Sylvia Sidney, the female protagonist was bold and determined. After her husband cheats on her with his former wife, she goes out to have a little fun, too. She gets tired of her husband's constant drunkenness and leaves him. He seems to come to his senses at the end of the movie and goes to her. Spoiler alert: she is in the hospital having delivered their baby. He didn't know she was pregnant and only learned about the baby after reading the birth announcement in the newspaper. This is a premonition of things to come once the code comes into play as any sin must be paid for with a person's ruin or death. However, it ends on a happy note that their marriage will be better and that they are hopeful for the future.
* Watch for Cary Grant in one of his earliest roles as the male lead in the period drama play towards the end of the film.
Something She's Not Telling Us
7.0
Rate It
Book
Named most anticipated book of 2020 by Cosmopolitan, Women's Wear Daily, Woman's Day, She Reads, The...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Heartbreak for Hire in Books
Aug 19, 2021
A wreck of a romance
Brinkley Saunders tells everyone she works as an administrative assistant. But she really works at
Heartbreak for Hire, an undercover operation that specializes in a variety of revenge schemes for jilted lovers, annoyed coworkers, and more. She dropped out of grad school in the aftermath of a disastrous relationship--much to the despair of her mother--but the job helps Brinkley save for her dream of opening her own art gallery. However, when her boss Margo announces she's hiring male Heartbreakers for the first time, Brinkley starts questioning her purpose, especially when one of the new hires is a target she was paid to take down. Markus Cavanaugh is an adjunct anthropology professor at University of Chicago. He doesn't seem like the backstabbing academic she was told to go after... and as she gets to know Markus more and continues to question her role as a Heartbreaker, Brinkley realizes a lot of things aren't what they seem.
"I had my career, my cat, control. The Three C's of avoiding that hopeless cycle of loving someone who didn't love me back."
I feel awful, but this book just did not work for me at all. I almost didn't finish it, but I really try to complete all my ARCs. Ironically I hated most of it except the end, which was actually pretty good. But most of this one had me cringing. Brinkley's job is terrible and makes no sense--I couldn't even see how Heartbreakers and the division of "Egos, Players, Cheaters, and Grifters" would even possibly translate to the real world. Her boss is absolutely awful.
"If we trained men to break women's hearts, what did that say about our mission? What did that say about us?"
The book is filled with ridiculous contrived fights and plot-lines, and I didn't buy the relationship between her and Markus at all. They like each other, hate each other, rinse and repeat, with a bunch of silly "twists" thrown in over and over to keep them apart. Do something and stop whining (this applies equally to them both). It was just boring and stupid, and I couldn't handle all the bad decisions. If there's going to be conflict, I want it to be realistic, and if there's going to be romance, I want to buy into the couple and feel a genuine affection toward them. But with everyone being so hateful to each other, an entire profession created toward tearing people down, and a bunch of random contrived obstacles thrown up to keep Markus and Brinkley apart... I just couldn't handle it.
A lot of other people enjoyed this one far more than me, so hopefully you will too.
I received a copy of this book from Gallery Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Heartbreak for Hire, an undercover operation that specializes in a variety of revenge schemes for jilted lovers, annoyed coworkers, and more. She dropped out of grad school in the aftermath of a disastrous relationship--much to the despair of her mother--but the job helps Brinkley save for her dream of opening her own art gallery. However, when her boss Margo announces she's hiring male Heartbreakers for the first time, Brinkley starts questioning her purpose, especially when one of the new hires is a target she was paid to take down. Markus Cavanaugh is an adjunct anthropology professor at University of Chicago. He doesn't seem like the backstabbing academic she was told to go after... and as she gets to know Markus more and continues to question her role as a Heartbreaker, Brinkley realizes a lot of things aren't what they seem.
"I had my career, my cat, control. The Three C's of avoiding that hopeless cycle of loving someone who didn't love me back."
I feel awful, but this book just did not work for me at all. I almost didn't finish it, but I really try to complete all my ARCs. Ironically I hated most of it except the end, which was actually pretty good. But most of this one had me cringing. Brinkley's job is terrible and makes no sense--I couldn't even see how Heartbreakers and the division of "Egos, Players, Cheaters, and Grifters" would even possibly translate to the real world. Her boss is absolutely awful.
"If we trained men to break women's hearts, what did that say about our mission? What did that say about us?"
The book is filled with ridiculous contrived fights and plot-lines, and I didn't buy the relationship between her and Markus at all. They like each other, hate each other, rinse and repeat, with a bunch of silly "twists" thrown in over and over to keep them apart. Do something and stop whining (this applies equally to them both). It was just boring and stupid, and I couldn't handle all the bad decisions. If there's going to be conflict, I want it to be realistic, and if there's going to be romance, I want to buy into the couple and feel a genuine affection toward them. But with everyone being so hateful to each other, an entire profession created toward tearing people down, and a bunch of random contrived obstacles thrown up to keep Markus and Brinkley apart... I just couldn't handle it.
A lot of other people enjoyed this one far more than me, so hopefully you will too.
I received a copy of this book from Gallery Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Renfield (2023) in Movies
Apr 22, 2023
Cage feels Caged-In
Sometime you are in the mood for a drama, sometimes an action flick, other times a romantic comedy.
And then there are times you just want to watch Nicholas Cage camping it up on-screen as Dracula.
If that is the mood you are in, boy do I have a movie for you.
Based (very loosely) on the character created by Bram Stoker (and the classic 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi), RENFIELD tells the tale of an over-the-top Dracula in modern times as seen through his “familiar”, Renfield.
Nicholas Hoult (Beast in the latest series of X-Men films) plays Renfield as a put-upon assistant to Dracula - kind of a comedy/horror version of the relationship of Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA - and it works (for the most part). Hoult is a winning (enough) and sympathetic presence on screen and you find yourself rooting for him in the end.
The surprising thing to me in this film is the sub-plot of Renfield finding love with a Police Office portrayed by (of all people) Awkwafina. This comedienne/actress has really grown on the BankofMarquis as a solid and dependable presence on screen and she doesn’t disappoint here. And that’s a good thing for the Renfield/Rebecca the Cop relationship ends up taking center stage during the 2nd act of this film (moving Nic Cage’s Dracula off-screen for a long stretch of time) and it works for Hoult and Awkwafina play off each other very well.
As for Cage, his Dracula is off-center, wacky, frenetic and out-of-this world. A true fish-out-of-water. But…if I’m being honest…his performance feels reigned in and it didn’t go far enough out-of-the-box and didn’t get nearly crazy enough for my tastes.
When something like that happens, one needs to look no further than the Director and Chris McKay (THE LEGO MOVIE, THE TOMORROW WAR) has a track record (at least for the BankofMarquis) of pulling his punches - and he pulls many, many punches in this film. But, he also DOESN’T pull punches at times (like in the scene where one guy gets his arms ripped off and then these arms are used as nunchucks on a bevy of bad guys). He doesn’t really know how far or how outlandish he should go. So he filters in a comedic amount of blood and gore - and then reigns Cage in. It’s an odd choice.
If you decide to watch Renfield, you already know what to expect - and for the most part you get it - except in the one spot that you really need it.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And then there are times you just want to watch Nicholas Cage camping it up on-screen as Dracula.
If that is the mood you are in, boy do I have a movie for you.
Based (very loosely) on the character created by Bram Stoker (and the classic 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi), RENFIELD tells the tale of an over-the-top Dracula in modern times as seen through his “familiar”, Renfield.
Nicholas Hoult (Beast in the latest series of X-Men films) plays Renfield as a put-upon assistant to Dracula - kind of a comedy/horror version of the relationship of Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA - and it works (for the most part). Hoult is a winning (enough) and sympathetic presence on screen and you find yourself rooting for him in the end.
The surprising thing to me in this film is the sub-plot of Renfield finding love with a Police Office portrayed by (of all people) Awkwafina. This comedienne/actress has really grown on the BankofMarquis as a solid and dependable presence on screen and she doesn’t disappoint here. And that’s a good thing for the Renfield/Rebecca the Cop relationship ends up taking center stage during the 2nd act of this film (moving Nic Cage’s Dracula off-screen for a long stretch of time) and it works for Hoult and Awkwafina play off each other very well.
As for Cage, his Dracula is off-center, wacky, frenetic and out-of-this world. A true fish-out-of-water. But…if I’m being honest…his performance feels reigned in and it didn’t go far enough out-of-the-box and didn’t get nearly crazy enough for my tastes.
When something like that happens, one needs to look no further than the Director and Chris McKay (THE LEGO MOVIE, THE TOMORROW WAR) has a track record (at least for the BankofMarquis) of pulling his punches - and he pulls many, many punches in this film. But, he also DOESN’T pull punches at times (like in the scene where one guy gets his arms ripped off and then these arms are used as nunchucks on a bevy of bad guys). He doesn’t really know how far or how outlandish he should go. So he filters in a comedic amount of blood and gore - and then reigns Cage in. It’s an odd choice.
If you decide to watch Renfield, you already know what to expect - and for the most part you get it - except in the one spot that you really need it.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Parallel Mothers (2021) in Movies
Mar 21, 2022
Cruz is terrific, the "B" plot is better
I have stated before that I find that Penelope Cruz is a very good (not great) actress when working in English. But…she has been a revelation to me as a GREAT Actress when I catch her work in her native language, Spanish, and she is especially good when she is working in a piece by the man that calls her his “muse”, Writer/Director Pedro Almodovar.
Such is the case with their latest collaboration - PARALLEL MOTHERS - an interesting and engaging film with a quality performance at the center of it by Cruz, a performance that has her, rightfully, nominated for the 4th time for an Oscar (she won in 2008 for her Supporting Role in VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA).
In this film, Cruz stars as one of 2 “parallel mothers”, who’s character, Janis, goes into labor at the same time as Milena Smit’s character, Ana. What happens to these two is that their lives will be intertwined in such a way that these “parallel mothers” will have a connection for the rest of their lives.
But, this is just the “A” story of this film and (as has been his custom), Almodovar gives us a “B” story that focuses on Spain’s attempt to continue to heal from the Spanish Civil War - and it is this part of the film that is the part that has lingered with me.
Cruz, of course, is a beautiful, wonderful choice as Janis. She holds the screen in every scene she is in (and that is almost every one) and her and Almodovar know what kind of movie they are making and head strongly in that direction. The surprise for me was Milena Smit’s performance as Ana as she holds her own in her scenes with Cruz.
The “A” story of this film is good (but not great) and it does fall, a bit, into “Soap Opera” territory, but Almodovar, Cruz et al know how to elevate it above that with realistic dialogue and emotions that grounds this portion of the film. It is the “B” plot that Almodovar seems to be more interested in and this, in turn, makes that part of the story the more interesting one. To be fair to Cruz, it does involve her character as well, but her relationship with Ana is put in the background, thus negating that relationship to the importance of the story.
The “B” plot was better and I almost wish that this was the main part of the story, it might have made it an overall better - maybe even excellent - film, but, instead, PARALLEL MOTHERS falls to “just” VERY GOOD.
Letter Grade: A- (for Cruz’ and Smit’s performances and the “B” plot)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with their latest collaboration - PARALLEL MOTHERS - an interesting and engaging film with a quality performance at the center of it by Cruz, a performance that has her, rightfully, nominated for the 4th time for an Oscar (she won in 2008 for her Supporting Role in VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA).
In this film, Cruz stars as one of 2 “parallel mothers”, who’s character, Janis, goes into labor at the same time as Milena Smit’s character, Ana. What happens to these two is that their lives will be intertwined in such a way that these “parallel mothers” will have a connection for the rest of their lives.
But, this is just the “A” story of this film and (as has been his custom), Almodovar gives us a “B” story that focuses on Spain’s attempt to continue to heal from the Spanish Civil War - and it is this part of the film that is the part that has lingered with me.
Cruz, of course, is a beautiful, wonderful choice as Janis. She holds the screen in every scene she is in (and that is almost every one) and her and Almodovar know what kind of movie they are making and head strongly in that direction. The surprise for me was Milena Smit’s performance as Ana as she holds her own in her scenes with Cruz.
The “A” story of this film is good (but not great) and it does fall, a bit, into “Soap Opera” territory, but Almodovar, Cruz et al know how to elevate it above that with realistic dialogue and emotions that grounds this portion of the film. It is the “B” plot that Almodovar seems to be more interested in and this, in turn, makes that part of the story the more interesting one. To be fair to Cruz, it does involve her character as well, but her relationship with Ana is put in the background, thus negating that relationship to the importance of the story.
The “B” plot was better and I almost wish that this was the main part of the story, it might have made it an overall better - maybe even excellent - film, but, instead, PARALLEL MOTHERS falls to “just” VERY GOOD.
Letter Grade: A- (for Cruz’ and Smit’s performances and the “B” plot)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Unleashing Happiness: How I Helped Free My Child from Anxious Thoughts
Book
Is it really possible for a mother to heal her angry child, changing her daughter's personality from...
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated The History of Wolves in Books
Nov 3, 2017
Compelling and rather odd
History of Wolves is a coming of age story that will resonate with many people. Linda, mostly left to raise herself by hippy, laid back parents, lives in Northern Minnesota, on grounds that used to belong to a commune, of which her parents were members.
Linda is 14, melodramatic and poetic. She's somewhat obsessed with a classmate, Lily, who spread rumours that their teacher, Me Grierson, molested her though this is questionable. Linda's narrative often veers off into dark corners, and the way the story is told (going back and forth, from teenage Linda to older Linda, reminiscing) only serves to increase the feeling of unease as the reader continues through the story.
The girl also spends a lot of time babysitting Paul, a toddler who moved into a cabin across the lake with his mother, Patra. Paul's father, Leo, is often working away, but when he arrives, Linda's relationship with Petra becomes strained. Patra's youth becomes glaringly obvious when her older husband appears. As a reader you're aware that something terrible has happened, but author Emily Fridlund trickled the information into your mind, keeping you reading until the end. The story surrounds Linda feeling both as a victim and a wrongdoer.
It's not the best Man Booker long list read as at times the narrative is far too disjointed. But the author writes very well.
Linda is 14, melodramatic and poetic. She's somewhat obsessed with a classmate, Lily, who spread rumours that their teacher, Me Grierson, molested her though this is questionable. Linda's narrative often veers off into dark corners, and the way the story is told (going back and forth, from teenage Linda to older Linda, reminiscing) only serves to increase the feeling of unease as the reader continues through the story.
The girl also spends a lot of time babysitting Paul, a toddler who moved into a cabin across the lake with his mother, Patra. Paul's father, Leo, is often working away, but when he arrives, Linda's relationship with Petra becomes strained. Patra's youth becomes glaringly obvious when her older husband appears. As a reader you're aware that something terrible has happened, but author Emily Fridlund trickled the information into your mind, keeping you reading until the end. The story surrounds Linda feeling both as a victim and a wrongdoer.
It's not the best Man Booker long list read as at times the narrative is far too disjointed. But the author writes very well.
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Nov 26, 2017
Vivid and brutal
I usually can't stomach war movies or Mel Gibson, but the story of Desmond Doss is an incredible one to behold. Doss is the only conscientious objector during the Second World War to have received America's top military award - the Medal of Honor. His refusal to bear arms gained him notoriety during training, being bullied by his commanding sergeants and fellow soldiers. But at the brutal battle in Hacksaw Ridge against the Japanese, Doss single-handedly went back into a warzone retrieving 75 injured soldiers, at a time when all hope was thought to be lost.
The film itself is in two halves. The first part is a little saccharine, portraying Doss as an innocent doe-eyed boy trailing a beautiful nurse who ends up becoming his wife. At the same time, his father, a tortured military man, is seen as abusive after witnessing horrors in France. Director Mel Gibson tries to connect this relationship to why Doss may not be keen on weapons. Overall, the war scenes are well-shot, extremely graphic to the point it is a completely immersive experience. If Gibson made the first half a little less Hollywood, it would be a skilfully made film. The best part by far is the end where you get to meet the real hero Doss speaking about his experiences. A harrowing watch.
The film itself is in two halves. The first part is a little saccharine, portraying Doss as an innocent doe-eyed boy trailing a beautiful nurse who ends up becoming his wife. At the same time, his father, a tortured military man, is seen as abusive after witnessing horrors in France. Director Mel Gibson tries to connect this relationship to why Doss may not be keen on weapons. Overall, the war scenes are well-shot, extremely graphic to the point it is a completely immersive experience. If Gibson made the first half a little less Hollywood, it would be a skilfully made film. The best part by far is the end where you get to meet the real hero Doss speaking about his experiences. A harrowing watch.