Search
Search results
Merissa (11646 KP) rated Sidney’s Triple Shot (Apache Crossing #1) in Books
Jul 3, 2018
Sidney’s Triple Shot (Apache Crossing #1) by Lori King
Sidney's Triple Shot is the first book in the Apache Crossing series, and I honestly can't wait to read more in what I am sure will be an amazing series.
Sidney escapes from an abusive relationship and zig-zags across America, trying to leave her ex-fiance behind. The trigger for her leaving may come as a surprise, as she suffered through something even worse and stayed. I guess it was the straw that broke the camel's back. She makes her way to Apache Crossing, and finds work as a bartender at the Triple Shot. She is understandably nervous, especially around the brothers who own the bar.
Xavier, Tyce, and Noah, are all very different, but they all agree to go after Sidney. They see something in her that intrigues them, and brings out their protective instincts. Which is a good thing, as she is going to need them.
This was a well-paced story that is both heart-breaking in places, and also full of love and hope. I did find Sidney to be annoying at times, even as I tried to make allowances for her. For someone so scared of being caught by Robert, she has no problem doing stupid things, even after she thinks she is being watched. The three guys had more patience with her than I would have!
With no editing or grammatical errors that disrupted my reading flow, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It has a wonderful cast of characters, and I hope to read their stories too. Steamy in places, tender in others, this book has a bit of something for everyone. Definitely recommended by me.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Sidney escapes from an abusive relationship and zig-zags across America, trying to leave her ex-fiance behind. The trigger for her leaving may come as a surprise, as she suffered through something even worse and stayed. I guess it was the straw that broke the camel's back. She makes her way to Apache Crossing, and finds work as a bartender at the Triple Shot. She is understandably nervous, especially around the brothers who own the bar.
Xavier, Tyce, and Noah, are all very different, but they all agree to go after Sidney. They see something in her that intrigues them, and brings out their protective instincts. Which is a good thing, as she is going to need them.
This was a well-paced story that is both heart-breaking in places, and also full of love and hope. I did find Sidney to be annoying at times, even as I tried to make allowances for her. For someone so scared of being caught by Robert, she has no problem doing stupid things, even after she thinks she is being watched. The three guys had more patience with her than I would have!
With no editing or grammatical errors that disrupted my reading flow, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It has a wonderful cast of characters, and I hope to read their stories too. Steamy in places, tender in others, this book has a bit of something for everyone. Definitely recommended by me.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Nick Beaty (70 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019 (Updated Nov 26, 2019)
And the Oscar goes to...
First things first, you can not start a review of Joker without mentioning the lead performance from Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck. I would say he is probably an evens favourite to take home the best actor Oscar at next years ceremony.
As for the movie itself, Tod Phillips take on Joker almost feels like a tribute to early Martin Scorsese movies, with the most obvious being Taxi Driver & The King of Comedy, both starring Robert De Niro who also appears here. This is certainly not a bad thing as they are brilliant pieces of cinema, that will stand the test of time. As will Joker in my opinion for it's excellent cinematography & gritty authenticity, I think people will still be talking about this movie for many years to come.
There are a few very slight flaws that I could point out. The first being that because it is so Scorsese like, for me it loses the feeling of being set in Gotham city and just feels very much like we are in New York city. Secondly the Wayne's and Alfred are very much portrayed as the bad guys in this movie, in my opinion I felt myself siding with Arthur/Joker a little too much maybe, which makes you lose all sympathy for the reason Batman became the Dark Knight in the first place. Last but not least the very controversial choice of adding a Gary Glitter song at a pivotal point of the movie, is a strange choice to say the least.
Overall Joker is an exceptional character study of a very disturbed individual with many mental health issues, add to that a superb performance by Joaquin Phoenix and I think you have a movie that will only get better with time and become a genre classic. With the huge box office success, I just hope DC keep this grim, very true to life approach for their future Batman projects.
As for the movie itself, Tod Phillips take on Joker almost feels like a tribute to early Martin Scorsese movies, with the most obvious being Taxi Driver & The King of Comedy, both starring Robert De Niro who also appears here. This is certainly not a bad thing as they are brilliant pieces of cinema, that will stand the test of time. As will Joker in my opinion for it's excellent cinematography & gritty authenticity, I think people will still be talking about this movie for many years to come.
There are a few very slight flaws that I could point out. The first being that because it is so Scorsese like, for me it loses the feeling of being set in Gotham city and just feels very much like we are in New York city. Secondly the Wayne's and Alfred are very much portrayed as the bad guys in this movie, in my opinion I felt myself siding with Arthur/Joker a little too much maybe, which makes you lose all sympathy for the reason Batman became the Dark Knight in the first place. Last but not least the very controversial choice of adding a Gary Glitter song at a pivotal point of the movie, is a strange choice to say the least.
Overall Joker is an exceptional character study of a very disturbed individual with many mental health issues, add to that a superb performance by Joaquin Phoenix and I think you have a movie that will only get better with time and become a genre classic. With the huge box office success, I just hope DC keep this grim, very true to life approach for their future Batman projects.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 26, 2020 (Updated Feb 26, 2020)
Perfect... for kids
The trailer for this didn't fill me with much confidence, and I was even more concerned after hearing about the troubles even getting it to the screen, and I'm afraid to say it lived up to my rather low expectations.
Right from the opening scene, its obvious this film has been made solely for children. The plot is basic and predictable and a lot of the action and gags are very childish and puerile. Even Emma Thompson's narration made me feel like I was watching a kids educational show. I appreciate it's difficult to make a film suitable for kids and adults alike, but Disney and Pixar have proved it's possible without being infantile - sadly Dolittle doesn't. There are a few moments that I did have a small giggle at, but most of the gags I found either too obvious or childish to be funny. Weirdly enough I found Kevin the squirrel and his logs hilarious.
The cast themselves I found underused, or rather odd choices - some of the voice actors of the animals to me seemed a little out of place. That probably wasn't helped by how distractingly odd the animals looked when they were talking, and with the CGI ranging from pretty good to decidedly dodgy. Antonio Banderas was wasted as King Rassouli and Michael Sheen was hamming it up to the extremes, but it's Robert Downey Jnr that deserves a notable mention... for how terrible his accent is. I love RDJ, but his Welsh accent ranges from ok to downright horrendous. I couldn't even tell from the trailer what sort of accent he was doing it was that bad. And the problem with this is the accent took away all of the fun and charisma you'd expect from his performance.
The one benefit of this film is that it's fairly short, so it doesnt drag too much. Your kids will love it, but as an adult I wouldn't expect much.
Right from the opening scene, its obvious this film has been made solely for children. The plot is basic and predictable and a lot of the action and gags are very childish and puerile. Even Emma Thompson's narration made me feel like I was watching a kids educational show. I appreciate it's difficult to make a film suitable for kids and adults alike, but Disney and Pixar have proved it's possible without being infantile - sadly Dolittle doesn't. There are a few moments that I did have a small giggle at, but most of the gags I found either too obvious or childish to be funny. Weirdly enough I found Kevin the squirrel and his logs hilarious.
The cast themselves I found underused, or rather odd choices - some of the voice actors of the animals to me seemed a little out of place. That probably wasn't helped by how distractingly odd the animals looked when they were talking, and with the CGI ranging from pretty good to decidedly dodgy. Antonio Banderas was wasted as King Rassouli and Michael Sheen was hamming it up to the extremes, but it's Robert Downey Jnr that deserves a notable mention... for how terrible his accent is. I love RDJ, but his Welsh accent ranges from ok to downright horrendous. I couldn't even tell from the trailer what sort of accent he was doing it was that bad. And the problem with this is the accent took away all of the fun and charisma you'd expect from his performance.
The one benefit of this film is that it's fairly short, so it doesnt drag too much. Your kids will love it, but as an adult I wouldn't expect much.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Sin City (2005) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021 (Updated Jan 11, 2021)
I absolutely adored Sin City when it first released way back in 2005, and I still do to a point, albeit a little less than I used to.
The main positives are of course the cast, and the style.
The cast is stacked - Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Brittany Murphy, Michael Madsen, Clive Owen, Micky Rourke, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Powers Boothe, Devon Aoki, Rutger Hauer, Michael Clarke Duncan, Carla Gugino, Jaime King... that's a fair ensemble if you ask me.
The style is of course a huge part of Sin City. It's neo noir black and white with splashes of colour translate perfectly from page to screen. 15 years later, the effects still look pretty decent and the overall look of the film is practically watching the graphic novels come to life, a strength that is bolstered by the cast involved.
It has a cheesy yet engaging screenplay - the runtime clocks in at over two hours, but never gets boring (just about), and the constant growly voiceovers and on the nose script beats could have potentially been laughable in anyone else's hands, but Robert Rodriguez somehow gets away with it.
The comics ultraviolence is well realised - the movie doesn't shy away from the grimness of proceedings. Some of the content however feels a little problematic in this day and age. The whole thing is plagued by a steady stream of misogyny, which would have probably been toned down if released today, but in my opinion, it's never glamorised. 95% of the male characters are grim shitbags, and the audience know it well.
I understand why a fair few people have an issue with Sin City and it's content, but personally, I find it to be a unique film with plenty of positives, a project that respects it's source material, and just about manages to avoid falling inside of its own arse.
The main positives are of course the cast, and the style.
The cast is stacked - Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Brittany Murphy, Michael Madsen, Clive Owen, Micky Rourke, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Powers Boothe, Devon Aoki, Rutger Hauer, Michael Clarke Duncan, Carla Gugino, Jaime King... that's a fair ensemble if you ask me.
The style is of course a huge part of Sin City. It's neo noir black and white with splashes of colour translate perfectly from page to screen. 15 years later, the effects still look pretty decent and the overall look of the film is practically watching the graphic novels come to life, a strength that is bolstered by the cast involved.
It has a cheesy yet engaging screenplay - the runtime clocks in at over two hours, but never gets boring (just about), and the constant growly voiceovers and on the nose script beats could have potentially been laughable in anyone else's hands, but Robert Rodriguez somehow gets away with it.
The comics ultraviolence is well realised - the movie doesn't shy away from the grimness of proceedings. Some of the content however feels a little problematic in this day and age. The whole thing is plagued by a steady stream of misogyny, which would have probably been toned down if released today, but in my opinion, it's never glamorised. 95% of the male characters are grim shitbags, and the audience know it well.
I understand why a fair few people have an issue with Sin City and it's content, but personally, I find it to be a unique film with plenty of positives, a project that respects it's source material, and just about manages to avoid falling inside of its own arse.
ClareR (5561 KP) rated The Dangerous Kingdom of Love in Books
Feb 21, 2022
After reading this book, I’d just like to say that I think Francis Bacon is perhaps one of my favourite characters ever! He has (I should clarify: in this book) the right mix of intelligence, humour and cunning to survive at the court of James I, and to keep me reading!
Francis realises that his place at court is in danger as long as Robert Carr is James I’s bedfellow (it hasn’t been explicitly told in history that James I was having sex with Carr and other young men, but he certainly liked having the young, attractive boys around). Carr is set to marry Frances Howard, and the Howards hate Bacon. Therefore, Bacon decides to find the King a new young man and oust Carr. This part where Bacon supports the rise of Villiers is, I believe, true, so this adds credence to the story.
It’s a love story for Bacon from here. He’s a reluctant romantic where Villiers is concerned (we’ll gloss over the fact that his wife, Alice Barnham, isn’t even hinted at), and realises too late that he doesn’t want to be without him. However this coincides with Bacon’s dramatic fall from grace (which is true).
I love historical fiction that takes the bones of a story and moulds it into something else VERY MUCH! Francis Bacon and all the other characters in this are fully formed people, given personalities, loves, dreams and quirks that you never see in the history books. Yes, it’s good to know what really happened (if that’s your thing), but this book was fun! Francis has a wicked side to him that I fell for. I had to keep reminding myself that this wasn’t the real Francis Bacon, it was Neil Blackmore’s Francis Bacon.
So yes, read this book. It’s bawdy and explicit in places, but oh my! The feels, people! This ticked all of my historical fiction boxes, and more besides!
Francis realises that his place at court is in danger as long as Robert Carr is James I’s bedfellow (it hasn’t been explicitly told in history that James I was having sex with Carr and other young men, but he certainly liked having the young, attractive boys around). Carr is set to marry Frances Howard, and the Howards hate Bacon. Therefore, Bacon decides to find the King a new young man and oust Carr. This part where Bacon supports the rise of Villiers is, I believe, true, so this adds credence to the story.
It’s a love story for Bacon from here. He’s a reluctant romantic where Villiers is concerned (we’ll gloss over the fact that his wife, Alice Barnham, isn’t even hinted at), and realises too late that he doesn’t want to be without him. However this coincides with Bacon’s dramatic fall from grace (which is true).
I love historical fiction that takes the bones of a story and moulds it into something else VERY MUCH! Francis Bacon and all the other characters in this are fully formed people, given personalities, loves, dreams and quirks that you never see in the history books. Yes, it’s good to know what really happened (if that’s your thing), but this book was fun! Francis has a wicked side to him that I fell for. I had to keep reminding myself that this wasn’t the real Francis Bacon, it was Neil Blackmore’s Francis Bacon.
So yes, read this book. It’s bawdy and explicit in places, but oh my! The feels, people! This ticked all of my historical fiction boxes, and more besides!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Beowulf (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The classic Epic poem Beowulf has come to the big screen in a stunning CGI extravaganza under the direction of Director Robert Zemeckis.
For those not familiar with the poem, it is an ancient Danish poem that talks of the heroic exploits of the hero Beowulf, as he battles all manner of bizarre creatures. The poem was told orally from generation to generation and eventually became known to many as the source of much of the early great literature from the western world.
I first became familiar with the tale some twenty years ago during my early years in private school where our headmaster had it as required reading for all of his students in honors level English.
The film stays very close to the poem and tells the tale of King Hrothgar (Sir Anthony Hopkins), a troubled leader whose kingdom is under siege by a hideous creature known as Grendel (Crispin Glover).
During a brutal attack by Grendel which results in the loss of many lives, King Hrothgar promises half the gold in his kingdom to any hero who can rid the land once and for all of the foul creature that has caused so much suffering.
In short order, the heroic Beowulf (Ray Winstone), arrives with is army of warriors to take up the challenge. Beowulf is legendary for his exploits in vanishing monsters, but his boastful nature raises the concerns of Unferth (John Malkovich), who thinks that Beowulf ‘s reputation and ability is far more style than substance.
Eventually Beowulf battles Grendel, and accomplishes his goal but learns that the monster has a Demonic mother that to must be destroyed in order for peace to truly be achieved.
Beowulf sets off the kill the demon (Angelina Jolie), but finds himself unable to match her whiles, and enters into a deal that has far reaching repercussions.
The second half of the film deals with the consequences of Beowulf’s decisions and how having is not nearly as important as wanting, which leads to a spectacular and FX filled final segment.
The film is amazing, and for those lucky enough to see the film in 3D, filled with amazing visual treats.
While the film is in no way suitable for children due to the violence it contains, the story holds up very well centuries later, and provides a solidly entertaining tale of heroism, betrayal, and morality that stands the test of time.
I had concerns that the film would be a slap-dashed effort that was attempting to cash in on the success of “The 300”, but in actuality, I found this film to be far more entertaining and satisfying.
The voice work of the cast is solid, but it is clearly the visuals that drive this film, as well as the dynamic effects made possible by the latest advancements in 3D technology as the film literally bursts out of the screen.
Beowulf will not be for everyone as those unfamiliar with the work on which it is based may find it derivative or predictable, but when you consider this is literally the tale that started it all, you could make an argument, that it set the table for all future tales to follow.
For those not familiar with the poem, it is an ancient Danish poem that talks of the heroic exploits of the hero Beowulf, as he battles all manner of bizarre creatures. The poem was told orally from generation to generation and eventually became known to many as the source of much of the early great literature from the western world.
I first became familiar with the tale some twenty years ago during my early years in private school where our headmaster had it as required reading for all of his students in honors level English.
The film stays very close to the poem and tells the tale of King Hrothgar (Sir Anthony Hopkins), a troubled leader whose kingdom is under siege by a hideous creature known as Grendel (Crispin Glover).
During a brutal attack by Grendel which results in the loss of many lives, King Hrothgar promises half the gold in his kingdom to any hero who can rid the land once and for all of the foul creature that has caused so much suffering.
In short order, the heroic Beowulf (Ray Winstone), arrives with is army of warriors to take up the challenge. Beowulf is legendary for his exploits in vanishing monsters, but his boastful nature raises the concerns of Unferth (John Malkovich), who thinks that Beowulf ‘s reputation and ability is far more style than substance.
Eventually Beowulf battles Grendel, and accomplishes his goal but learns that the monster has a Demonic mother that to must be destroyed in order for peace to truly be achieved.
Beowulf sets off the kill the demon (Angelina Jolie), but finds himself unable to match her whiles, and enters into a deal that has far reaching repercussions.
The second half of the film deals with the consequences of Beowulf’s decisions and how having is not nearly as important as wanting, which leads to a spectacular and FX filled final segment.
The film is amazing, and for those lucky enough to see the film in 3D, filled with amazing visual treats.
While the film is in no way suitable for children due to the violence it contains, the story holds up very well centuries later, and provides a solidly entertaining tale of heroism, betrayal, and morality that stands the test of time.
I had concerns that the film would be a slap-dashed effort that was attempting to cash in on the success of “The 300”, but in actuality, I found this film to be far more entertaining and satisfying.
The voice work of the cast is solid, but it is clearly the visuals that drive this film, as well as the dynamic effects made possible by the latest advancements in 3D technology as the film literally bursts out of the screen.
Beowulf will not be for everyone as those unfamiliar with the work on which it is based may find it derivative or predictable, but when you consider this is literally the tale that started it all, you could make an argument, that it set the table for all future tales to follow.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Killers of the Flower moon (2023) in Movies
Oct 27, 2023
Best Thing Scorses (and DeNiro) have done in many, many years
The BankofMarquis would highly recommend you see the latest epic (and we do mean EPIC) film from famed Director Martin Scorsese in a movie theater. Not because of the beautiful Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto, not because of the Epic-ness of the tale told and not because movie theaters could use your business (all of which are reasons to see it in the movie theaters). You need to see KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON in a movie theater so that you cannot be distracted by things around you (most, notably your PHONE). One needs to immerse themselves in the experience of this 3 1/2 movie to totally understand and appreciate it.
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Targets (1968) in Movies
Jun 18, 2020
Targeting Frankenstein: A Horror Icon
Targets- is a very suspenseful film that stars a old boris Karloff. His performance in this film is different. Usually he is type-cast in a horror movie. Targets is not the cast, its a more serious role for Karloff and I liked it alot. He is dramatic in Targets. It was Karloff's last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968.
The plot: After unhinged Vietnam vet Bobby Thompson (Tim O'Kelly) kills his wife and mother, he goes on a brutal shooting spree. Starting at an oil refinery, he evades the police and continues his murderous outing at a drive-in movie theater, where Byron Orlock (Boris Karloff), a retiring horror film icon, is making a promotional appearance. Before long, Orlock, a symbol of fantastical old-fashioned scares, faces off against Thompson, a remorseless psychopath rooted in a harsh modern reality.
Even Karloff's charcter is a retired horror film actor, so he can never get away from the horror genre/type-casting.
In the film's finale at a drive-in theater, Orlok – the old-fashioned, traditional screen monster who always obeyed the rules – confronts the new, realistic, nihilistic late-1960s "monster" in the shape of a clean-cut, unassuming multiple murderer.
Bogdanovich got the chance to make Targets because Boris Karloff owed studio head Roger Corman two days' work. Corman told Bogdanovich he could make any film he liked provided he used Karloff and stayed under budget. In addition, Bogdanovich had to use clips from Corman's Napoleonic-era thriller The Terror in the movie. The clips from The Terror feature Jack Nicholson and Boris Karloff. A brief clip of Howard Hawks' 1931 film The Criminal Code featuring Karloff was also used.
American International Pictures offered to release, but Bogdanovich wanted to try to see if the film could get a deal with a major studio. It was seen by Robert Evans of Paramount who bought it for $150,000, giving Corman an instant profit on the movie before it was even released.
Although the film was written and production photography completed in late 1967, it was released after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in early 1968 and thus had some topical relevance to then-current events. Nevertheless, it was not very successful at the box office.
Quentin Tarantino later called it "the most political movie Corman ever made since The Intruder. And forty years later it’s still one of the strongest cries for gun control in American cinema. The film isn’t a thriller with a social commentary buried inside of it (the normal Corman model), it’s a social commentary with a thriller buried inside of it... It was one of the most powerful films of 1968 and one of the greatest directorial debuts of all time. And I believe the best film ever produced by Roger Corman.
Its a excellent mystery suspenseful thrilling starring Boris Karloff, last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968. A great film to end your career on.
The plot: After unhinged Vietnam vet Bobby Thompson (Tim O'Kelly) kills his wife and mother, he goes on a brutal shooting spree. Starting at an oil refinery, he evades the police and continues his murderous outing at a drive-in movie theater, where Byron Orlock (Boris Karloff), a retiring horror film icon, is making a promotional appearance. Before long, Orlock, a symbol of fantastical old-fashioned scares, faces off against Thompson, a remorseless psychopath rooted in a harsh modern reality.
Even Karloff's charcter is a retired horror film actor, so he can never get away from the horror genre/type-casting.
In the film's finale at a drive-in theater, Orlok – the old-fashioned, traditional screen monster who always obeyed the rules – confronts the new, realistic, nihilistic late-1960s "monster" in the shape of a clean-cut, unassuming multiple murderer.
Bogdanovich got the chance to make Targets because Boris Karloff owed studio head Roger Corman two days' work. Corman told Bogdanovich he could make any film he liked provided he used Karloff and stayed under budget. In addition, Bogdanovich had to use clips from Corman's Napoleonic-era thriller The Terror in the movie. The clips from The Terror feature Jack Nicholson and Boris Karloff. A brief clip of Howard Hawks' 1931 film The Criminal Code featuring Karloff was also used.
American International Pictures offered to release, but Bogdanovich wanted to try to see if the film could get a deal with a major studio. It was seen by Robert Evans of Paramount who bought it for $150,000, giving Corman an instant profit on the movie before it was even released.
Although the film was written and production photography completed in late 1967, it was released after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in early 1968 and thus had some topical relevance to then-current events. Nevertheless, it was not very successful at the box office.
Quentin Tarantino later called it "the most political movie Corman ever made since The Intruder. And forty years later it’s still one of the strongest cries for gun control in American cinema. The film isn’t a thriller with a social commentary buried inside of it (the normal Corman model), it’s a social commentary with a thriller buried inside of it... It was one of the most powerful films of 1968 and one of the greatest directorial debuts of all time. And I believe the best film ever produced by Roger Corman.
Its a excellent mystery suspenseful thrilling starring Boris Karloff, last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968. A great film to end your career on.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Under the Silver Lake (2018) in Movies
Jul 6, 2019
In David Robert Mitchell’s (It Follows) Under the Silver Lake, Andrew Garfield portrays a jobless and lethargic young man named Sam. Apart from his obsession with conspiracy theories and finding obscure messages in common pop culture, Sam typically spies on his topless and bird-loving neighbor. He also blatantly ignores the fact that he’s facing eviction in five days for unpaid rent. His current infatuation is a zine entitled Under the Silver Lake, which seems to mirror what’s currently transpiring in Los Angeles. Sam develops a crush on his new neighbor named Sarah (Riley Keough), who seems to disappear without a trace overnight. What begins as an investigation into Sarah’s current whereabouts evolves into something deeply rooted in the peculiar.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Rover (2014) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Don't mess with a man's car!
If you have seen the current Netflix film, The King (hopefully watching this weekend), you will have seen a subsequent effort by writer/director David Michôd.
This film takes place 10 years after "the collapse", not really specified other than not many people around and the ones who are survive a desolate, isolated existence. The setting is the barren Australian outback wasteland where human beings are scarce and gratuity and benevolence are things of the past.
A lonely man (never spoke his name in the film) sees three men steal his vehicle after theirs is sidelined from an apparent crash. Incensed, the grizzled man takes off after the threesome rapidly wanted to reacquire it. The men are far in the lead down the infinity highway, but the man manages to catch them since they are unaware of the pursuit. After some cat and mouse along the highway, the man is unable to retrieve his vehicle at that time.
The makes his way through the harsh landscape eventually running across the wounded brother of one of his car thieves who he decides to bring along for the ride. The brother is willing to explain the possible destination of the thieves as well as he may want some sort of vengeance since his brother and companions left him to die on the side of the road.
Any post-apocalyptic film set in Australia immediately will remind you of the Mad Max films. Similar in setting only, this film is much less action and is an unlikely road film at its core. There are some well designed action scenes when the men encounter various scumbags and individuals along their route. You are never really sure why the man is so interested in getting his car back until the very end.
Guy Pearce shows he is up to the challenge of playing a very unlikable, hardened miscreant, while Robert Pattinson plays the simpleton sidekick role extremely well. His accent his so hard to understand at times (reminded me of Brad Pitt in Snatch) I actually had to rewind a few times because I missed the catchy dialogue.
The film does have a few dry spots, but I was very surprised how much I liked this.
This film takes place 10 years after "the collapse", not really specified other than not many people around and the ones who are survive a desolate, isolated existence. The setting is the barren Australian outback wasteland where human beings are scarce and gratuity and benevolence are things of the past.
A lonely man (never spoke his name in the film) sees three men steal his vehicle after theirs is sidelined from an apparent crash. Incensed, the grizzled man takes off after the threesome rapidly wanted to reacquire it. The men are far in the lead down the infinity highway, but the man manages to catch them since they are unaware of the pursuit. After some cat and mouse along the highway, the man is unable to retrieve his vehicle at that time.
The makes his way through the harsh landscape eventually running across the wounded brother of one of his car thieves who he decides to bring along for the ride. The brother is willing to explain the possible destination of the thieves as well as he may want some sort of vengeance since his brother and companions left him to die on the side of the road.
Any post-apocalyptic film set in Australia immediately will remind you of the Mad Max films. Similar in setting only, this film is much less action and is an unlikely road film at its core. There are some well designed action scenes when the men encounter various scumbags and individuals along their route. You are never really sure why the man is so interested in getting his car back until the very end.
Guy Pearce shows he is up to the challenge of playing a very unlikable, hardened miscreant, while Robert Pattinson plays the simpleton sidekick role extremely well. His accent his so hard to understand at times (reminded me of Brad Pitt in Snatch) I actually had to rewind a few times because I missed the catchy dialogue.
The film does have a few dry spots, but I was very surprised how much I liked this.