Search
-
RL
Roger Lloyd Pack
Author
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Tournament in Books
Nov 27, 2019
Australian author Matthew Reilly is known for his fast paced, edge of your seat, suspension of belief thrillers. This book is a considerable change from that, being a slower and more thoughtful tale of 16th century murder and intrigue.
Reilly's books, under the usual all-out action sequences, always convey a good plot and storyline and have strong characterisation. Here those are to the fore. The main players are a young Princess Elizabeth; daughter of King Henry VIII and soon to be Elizabeth I and her teacher, Roger Ascham. Sultan Sulieman the Magnificent has invited all the best chess players across Europe to play to decide which nation can claim to have the ultimate chess champions. Elizabeth and Roger accompany England's entrant both to avoid the black death but also because Ascham wants to give Elizabeth a wide education just in case she becomes queen.
After a few adventures on the way the party arrives, along with the representatives of the other nations. Court intrigue and politics abound and everyone has their own agenda. When there is a high profile murder, Sulieman requests the aid of Ascham - known for his insight and ability to resolve problems using logic - to find the culprit before there is an international scandal. As the bodies pile up, Ascham and young Elizabeth face dangerous and unknown enemies and uncover plots and dark secrets.
The medieval detective story is not entirely new for Reilly. Previous he has written a couple of short stories that are available for download from his website - www.mattewreilly.com - with this theme. Dead Prince concerns the death of the Dauphin in France and is investigated by the king's architect. Roger Ascham and the King's Missing Girl is a story that precedes The Tournament by a few months and effectively introduces Ascham and his skills as he tracks down a serial kidnapper and murderer in Cambridge.
Reilly acknowledges at the end of the book that he was influenced by works such as The Name of the Rose and indeed this has much of the same flavour. The plot is complex and has the chess match running through it (and indeed sections of the book are named after chess pieces). Everything is very well handled by Reilly and everything unravels nicely in the finale of the book.
This has also been well researched. With many real historical figures included (not only Elizabeth, Ascham and Sulieman but a supporting cast that includes Ivan the Terrible and Michelangelo) and the feel of all the descriptions is very authentic.
One aspect that has to be mentioned is that, since Reilly wanted to explore something that may have influenced Elizabeth in her future life, there are a fair number of events of a sexual nature that occur. Some of these have a direct bearing on the plot, others are so that Elizabeth can form opinions on sex and marriage. Reilly has printed a warning at the start of the book that this is not for younger readers, and I can fully endorse that.
I can imagine that a number of Reilly fans will not enjoy this book - the pace is slow and methodical rather than headlong and there are very few 'action' sequences to speak of. However I would recommend this book to anybody who likes historical detective style stories.
Reilly's books, under the usual all-out action sequences, always convey a good plot and storyline and have strong characterisation. Here those are to the fore. The main players are a young Princess Elizabeth; daughter of King Henry VIII and soon to be Elizabeth I and her teacher, Roger Ascham. Sultan Sulieman the Magnificent has invited all the best chess players across Europe to play to decide which nation can claim to have the ultimate chess champions. Elizabeth and Roger accompany England's entrant both to avoid the black death but also because Ascham wants to give Elizabeth a wide education just in case she becomes queen.
After a few adventures on the way the party arrives, along with the representatives of the other nations. Court intrigue and politics abound and everyone has their own agenda. When there is a high profile murder, Sulieman requests the aid of Ascham - known for his insight and ability to resolve problems using logic - to find the culprit before there is an international scandal. As the bodies pile up, Ascham and young Elizabeth face dangerous and unknown enemies and uncover plots and dark secrets.
The medieval detective story is not entirely new for Reilly. Previous he has written a couple of short stories that are available for download from his website - www.mattewreilly.com - with this theme. Dead Prince concerns the death of the Dauphin in France and is investigated by the king's architect. Roger Ascham and the King's Missing Girl is a story that precedes The Tournament by a few months and effectively introduces Ascham and his skills as he tracks down a serial kidnapper and murderer in Cambridge.
Reilly acknowledges at the end of the book that he was influenced by works such as The Name of the Rose and indeed this has much of the same flavour. The plot is complex and has the chess match running through it (and indeed sections of the book are named after chess pieces). Everything is very well handled by Reilly and everything unravels nicely in the finale of the book.
This has also been well researched. With many real historical figures included (not only Elizabeth, Ascham and Sulieman but a supporting cast that includes Ivan the Terrible and Michelangelo) and the feel of all the descriptions is very authentic.
One aspect that has to be mentioned is that, since Reilly wanted to explore something that may have influenced Elizabeth in her future life, there are a fair number of events of a sexual nature that occur. Some of these have a direct bearing on the plot, others are so that Elizabeth can form opinions on sex and marriage. Reilly has printed a warning at the start of the book that this is not for younger readers, and I can fully endorse that.
I can imagine that a number of Reilly fans will not enjoy this book - the pace is slow and methodical rather than headlong and there are very few 'action' sequences to speak of. However I would recommend this book to anybody who likes historical detective style stories.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
I had been wildly swaying between wanting and not wanting to see this, but Cineworld gave us an Unlimited Screening so of course I was going to go.
Life in the media spotlight is difficult enough without having to deal with the unwanted advances and comments of those around you. When one of Fox News' ex-employees comes forward with allegations of sexual harassment the whole network is a buzz as it tries to rally. Roger Ailes has a hold over everyone there and it's time someone put a stop to it.
Before I go into the acting I want to mention the style the movie has. There are sections done to camera in news report style, that seems like a given considering the subject matter, and as well as the "standard" on-screen there's some voiceover on scenes. The whole opening is done to camera in the news style and it sets up the story well, but I wasn't sure I enjoyed that later in the film, I like my fourth wall intact unless it involves Deadpool.
Out of our three leading ladies I was most impressed with Margot Robbie, potentially this is because she wasn't constrained by the role of real life person, Kayla's fictional amalgamation of people and experiences allows for more of a range. At times though I did think the role wasn't going anywhere but seeing her interactions with Lithgow as Ailes, and McKinnon as Carr, I was reassured.
The scene between Roger Ailes and Kayla that becomes the pivotal point in the story for her was excellent while actually being absolutely horrendous. That such a short scene can make me feel so much was a credit to both Robbie and Lithgow... and the sound department. Hearing his breathing so prominently was quite effective in the worst way possible.
Something they successfully managed to do throughout the film is show the competitive nature of the world and just a selection of the hideous things that are put up with through fear and ambition. There's one particular montage of moments with women defending their boss that illustrated that perfectly.
There's a very talented cast hidden in Bombshell, and I say hidden because at least half the people that popped on screen made me drop my jaw in surprise. I hadn't realised how many "cameos" there were, I'm sure I could have discovered them all on IMDb, it certainly helped to keep me interested. Though I don't think it necessarily needed that extra help.
Have you ever read a James Patterson novel? The chapters are so short, everything changes perspective so quickly that you're hooked and suddenly you've read half the book, this movie felt like that. As we switch scenes and characters you're constantly moved along at a pace that keeps you engaged, at no time did I feel like it was getting too confusing to follow, it was very well done.
I enjoyed the film but there's part of me that wonders if it did actually hit the mark. I'm left with one moment in particular that felt a little wrong, later in the movie between Pospisil (Robbie) and Kelly (Theron). It was the only moment that really hit me as feeling out of place. By that point we'd managed to get a lot of ideas about both characters and Kelly's behaviour and Pospisil's reaction stuck out like a sore thumb. It felt like a little slip in something that was otherwise a powerful watch.
While I don't think that every note was hit perfectly, overall Bombshell was a good exploration of this subject. With its impressive acting and great pace it's definitely an interesting addition to the conversations happening in the media at the moment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/bombshell-movie-review.html
Life in the media spotlight is difficult enough without having to deal with the unwanted advances and comments of those around you. When one of Fox News' ex-employees comes forward with allegations of sexual harassment the whole network is a buzz as it tries to rally. Roger Ailes has a hold over everyone there and it's time someone put a stop to it.
Before I go into the acting I want to mention the style the movie has. There are sections done to camera in news report style, that seems like a given considering the subject matter, and as well as the "standard" on-screen there's some voiceover on scenes. The whole opening is done to camera in the news style and it sets up the story well, but I wasn't sure I enjoyed that later in the film, I like my fourth wall intact unless it involves Deadpool.
Out of our three leading ladies I was most impressed with Margot Robbie, potentially this is because she wasn't constrained by the role of real life person, Kayla's fictional amalgamation of people and experiences allows for more of a range. At times though I did think the role wasn't going anywhere but seeing her interactions with Lithgow as Ailes, and McKinnon as Carr, I was reassured.
The scene between Roger Ailes and Kayla that becomes the pivotal point in the story for her was excellent while actually being absolutely horrendous. That such a short scene can make me feel so much was a credit to both Robbie and Lithgow... and the sound department. Hearing his breathing so prominently was quite effective in the worst way possible.
Something they successfully managed to do throughout the film is show the competitive nature of the world and just a selection of the hideous things that are put up with through fear and ambition. There's one particular montage of moments with women defending their boss that illustrated that perfectly.
There's a very talented cast hidden in Bombshell, and I say hidden because at least half the people that popped on screen made me drop my jaw in surprise. I hadn't realised how many "cameos" there were, I'm sure I could have discovered them all on IMDb, it certainly helped to keep me interested. Though I don't think it necessarily needed that extra help.
Have you ever read a James Patterson novel? The chapters are so short, everything changes perspective so quickly that you're hooked and suddenly you've read half the book, this movie felt like that. As we switch scenes and characters you're constantly moved along at a pace that keeps you engaged, at no time did I feel like it was getting too confusing to follow, it was very well done.
I enjoyed the film but there's part of me that wonders if it did actually hit the mark. I'm left with one moment in particular that felt a little wrong, later in the movie between Pospisil (Robbie) and Kelly (Theron). It was the only moment that really hit me as feeling out of place. By that point we'd managed to get a lot of ideas about both characters and Kelly's behaviour and Pospisil's reaction stuck out like a sore thumb. It felt like a little slip in something that was otherwise a powerful watch.
While I don't think that every note was hit perfectly, overall Bombshell was a good exploration of this subject. With its impressive acting and great pace it's definitely an interesting addition to the conversations happening in the media at the moment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/bombshell-movie-review.html
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Slumber Party Massacre (1982) in Movies
Oct 10, 2020
This film has a slumber party and it also has a massacre. In that respect, The Slumber Party Massacre does exactly what is says on the tin, but actually has more to it underneath it's trashy exterior.
It may very well be another 80s slasher following in the wake of Friday the 13th, but a few things make it stick out above some of the rest.
The short 77 minute runtime means that the plot steams along at a snappy pace. The expected killer chase scenes are genuinely tense. The characters are all fairly realistic. All good stuff.
Its important to note that this film was directed by Amy Holden Jones, and written by Rita Mae Brown. The presence of two females in these usually male dominated roles is certainly noteworthy, especially in the 80s. As a result, we have female characters who aren't afraid to fight back, and who don't rely on men to save them. There's not even an obvious Final Girl candidate, any one of the main cast could have filled that role. It's refreshing to see.
However, TSPM is produced by Roger Corman, which would go someway in explaining the excessive nudity, and why the finished product is far different to what Rita Mae Brown had initially envisioned.
The practical effects are fairly minimal, but what we do get is pretty good, and there's some semi decent gore dished out by Russ Thorn, this movies antagonist. He's obviously not a patch on slasher icons such as Jason or Freddy, but he's still a weird enough dude to make his mark on the genre. (Not quite as weird as the dude who hunts snails though, what the fuck was that all about)
The Slumber Party Massacre is a straight shooting horror that may have a cheap look, but it's fun for the most part, and has some memorable slasher moments.
It may very well be another 80s slasher following in the wake of Friday the 13th, but a few things make it stick out above some of the rest.
The short 77 minute runtime means that the plot steams along at a snappy pace. The expected killer chase scenes are genuinely tense. The characters are all fairly realistic. All good stuff.
Its important to note that this film was directed by Amy Holden Jones, and written by Rita Mae Brown. The presence of two females in these usually male dominated roles is certainly noteworthy, especially in the 80s. As a result, we have female characters who aren't afraid to fight back, and who don't rely on men to save them. There's not even an obvious Final Girl candidate, any one of the main cast could have filled that role. It's refreshing to see.
However, TSPM is produced by Roger Corman, which would go someway in explaining the excessive nudity, and why the finished product is far different to what Rita Mae Brown had initially envisioned.
The practical effects are fairly minimal, but what we do get is pretty good, and there's some semi decent gore dished out by Russ Thorn, this movies antagonist. He's obviously not a patch on slasher icons such as Jason or Freddy, but he's still a weird enough dude to make his mark on the genre. (Not quite as weird as the dude who hunts snails though, what the fuck was that all about)
The Slumber Party Massacre is a straight shooting horror that may have a cheap look, but it's fun for the most part, and has some memorable slasher moments.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Tour-de-Force filmmaking
I have just viewed the film that WILL WIN the Oscars for Best Picture, Director and Cinematography (and probably many, many more).
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Rampart Guards (The Adventures of Jason Lex, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Roger Charlie in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<p style="text-align: left;"><i>The Rampart Guards</i> basically made me realize that I'm definitely growing out of middle grade books and I should move on. This is an extremely scary thought, because what if I get tired of young adult books next?! That probably won't happen for a good while, and I've yet to actually read an adult novel that isn't from the cause of required reading.
<p style="text-align: left;">The first book in the <i>Chronicles of Jason Lex</i> starts out extremely slow, but picks up pace as the story progresses. Jason's mom suddenly goes missing, and Jason (along with his family) suddenly gets forced to move to a small town with their grandmother to get away from the painful memories of their mom. And to top it off, Jason sees weird blue electricity-like wisps coming out from his hands and eels in the sky later revealed as Skyfish. He's also a little whiny at the beginning of the novel, but eventually drops it as he realizes, "Oh, hey. Cryptids are real. Someone is hoping to expose these creatures and kill millions in the process, and if I don't get my act together, I might lose everything as well."
Wendy Terrien's debut novel is right up my alley in regards to concept <i>The Rampart Guards</i> is about cryptozoology, the study of creatures that may or may not exist. It's not everyday Big Foot, Loch Ness, and other creatures play a critical role in the plot of a novel, and it's the primary reason why <i>The Rampart Guards</i> caught my eye the moment the book was pitched to me.
I adored learning about all kinds of different creatures I've never heard of until I read this book, and if I do decide to continue on with the series, learning more about the cryptids and how this entire world works is going to be one thing I'll be extremely excited for.
Even though I didn't enjoy it as much as I hoped I would, <i>The Rampart Guards</i> will be a fantastic read for younger audiences.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-rampart-guards-by-wendy-terrien/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<p style="text-align: left;"><i>The Rampart Guards</i> basically made me realize that I'm definitely growing out of middle grade books and I should move on. This is an extremely scary thought, because what if I get tired of young adult books next?! That probably won't happen for a good while, and I've yet to actually read an adult novel that isn't from the cause of required reading.
<p style="text-align: left;">The first book in the <i>Chronicles of Jason Lex</i> starts out extremely slow, but picks up pace as the story progresses. Jason's mom suddenly goes missing, and Jason (along with his family) suddenly gets forced to move to a small town with their grandmother to get away from the painful memories of their mom. And to top it off, Jason sees weird blue electricity-like wisps coming out from his hands and eels in the sky later revealed as Skyfish. He's also a little whiny at the beginning of the novel, but eventually drops it as he realizes, "Oh, hey. Cryptids are real. Someone is hoping to expose these creatures and kill millions in the process, and if I don't get my act together, I might lose everything as well."
Wendy Terrien's debut novel is right up my alley in regards to concept <i>The Rampart Guards</i> is about cryptozoology, the study of creatures that may or may not exist. It's not everyday Big Foot, Loch Ness, and other creatures play a critical role in the plot of a novel, and it's the primary reason why <i>The Rampart Guards</i> caught my eye the moment the book was pitched to me.
I adored learning about all kinds of different creatures I've never heard of until I read this book, and if I do decide to continue on with the series, learning more about the cryptids and how this entire world works is going to be one thing I'll be extremely excited for.
Even though I didn't enjoy it as much as I hoped I would, <i>The Rampart Guards</i> will be a fantastic read for younger audiences.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-rampart-guards-by-wendy-terrien/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Darren (1599 KP) rated Mr. Holmes (2015) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
Characters – Sherlock Holmes is one of the iconic characters in any mystery tale, this time we following him in his latter years, as we follow the three moments, the last case he didn’t solve, the trip to Japan and how he is writing the story about his last case. This character is interesting to find because we see a great mind struggling to remember everything that he should. Mrs Munro is the housekeeper looking after Sherlock while he focuses on his projects and bees, she does want to move away with her son because she finds Sherlock more in need of a nurse than a housekeeper. Roger is her young son that Sherlock takes under his wing, he is eager to learn more about his stories and the bees which can leave him in trouble at times. Tamiki has invited Sherlock to Japan, claiming to be a big fan, but he has different motives for this, we don’t really see enough of this character though.
Performances – Ian McKellen is fantastic in the leading role, but could we expect anything less from one of the greatest of all times? Laura Linney has always been able to mould herself into any supporting character and here is no different. Milo Parker is good for a child star, nailing the important scenes and keeping his innocence about him. Hiroyuki Sanada is a man we would have liked to have seen more in this film, I feel there is a lot more that we could have had from his character.
Story – Sherlock Holmes, the icon, the legend, the detective that solves every case, is now old and trying to put together parts of his memory o finish a final book, as he tries to remember the chapters of his life. Following the three different stages of his elderly life, can in places become confusing, but everything is tied up by the end and plays into the idea of what is real or part of a story well. The pace of the story is slow in places which doesn’t help keep on top of everything though.
Mystery – The mystery side of the film, comes off slow, we have a couple of mysteries Holmes wants to solve, but we never get left in a position to want to see them unfold.
Settings – The settings play into the late 40s well, Japan is haunting for this, the beach/cliff top location looks beautiful too.
Scene of the Movie – Japan and the aftermath.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is very slow.
Final Thoughts – This is a slow mystery movie that does focus on certain parts of the later life of a Holmes figure which is different as it is him battle against his own mind while trying to remember or solve the cases.
Overall: Slow, but interesting.
Performances – Ian McKellen is fantastic in the leading role, but could we expect anything less from one of the greatest of all times? Laura Linney has always been able to mould herself into any supporting character and here is no different. Milo Parker is good for a child star, nailing the important scenes and keeping his innocence about him. Hiroyuki Sanada is a man we would have liked to have seen more in this film, I feel there is a lot more that we could have had from his character.
Story – Sherlock Holmes, the icon, the legend, the detective that solves every case, is now old and trying to put together parts of his memory o finish a final book, as he tries to remember the chapters of his life. Following the three different stages of his elderly life, can in places become confusing, but everything is tied up by the end and plays into the idea of what is real or part of a story well. The pace of the story is slow in places which doesn’t help keep on top of everything though.
Mystery – The mystery side of the film, comes off slow, we have a couple of mysteries Holmes wants to solve, but we never get left in a position to want to see them unfold.
Settings – The settings play into the late 40s well, Japan is haunting for this, the beach/cliff top location looks beautiful too.
Scene of the Movie – Japan and the aftermath.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is very slow.
Final Thoughts – This is a slow mystery movie that does focus on certain parts of the later life of a Holmes figure which is different as it is him battle against his own mind while trying to remember or solve the cases.
Overall: Slow, but interesting.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mr. Holmes (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Sir Ian McKellen is magnificent
Sherlock Holmes is hot property at the moment. Robert Downey Jr has played the titular detective in two box-office behemoths and Benedict Cumberbatch is supremely popular across the globe for his take on the character.
Now, Sir Ian McKellen is giving it a go in the little-publicised BBC funded Mr Holmes. But does it continue the trend of crafting intriguing dramas from the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
Bill Condon, director of Dreamgirls and the upcoming Beauty & the Beast live-action remake takes charge of an intriguing film that ends up having a whiff of Saturday night drama about it.
Mr Holmes follows the story of the titular character as he comes to terms with his advancing years. McKellen plays Holmes at age 93, living away from the public eye in a quiet rural location alongside his harsh housekeeper Mrs Munro (Laura Linney) and her son Roger – a wonderful Milo Parker in his first big-screen role.
Ian McKellen is simply brilliant throughout the course of the film and after years of playing Gandalf and Magneto, slows things right down in a portrayal of the detective never really seen before – he is magnificent.
Laura Linney is a good distraction from McKellen’s rather downbeat role but her character doesn’t really do enough to register and her accent wanders through numerous countries by the time the end credits roll. This is very much McKellen’s film.
Mr Holmes, much like A Little Chaos earlier this year is a slow-paced drama that would rather tackle the finer details of the script and focus on its characters then delve into unnecessary subplots and fancy special effects and there’s something charming about this simplicity.
Unfortunately though, it all just feels a little TV drama like. Because of this, you’re almost expecting a ‘To be continued…’ credit to be added at the end of the first hour – with the conclusion coming a week later.
This is a real shame as it makes Mr Holmes feel longer than it actually is. At just over 100 minutes, this is by no means a drawn-out film but the slow pace ensures things seem to take a little longer than they perhaps would in another feature.
Thankfully though, Ian McKellen’s performance is reason enough to give Mr Holmes a watch, with another being the intriguing and at times, rather unpredictable plot.
Overall, there isn’t really that much wrong with Mr Holmes but its release date is almost suicidal. Being sandwiched in between blockbusters like Jurassic World, Minions and Terminator: Genisys, it has a tough job to do and it deserves more success than I fear it will end up having.
Ian McKellen, like Meryl Streep is one of the finest living thespians and Mr Holmes only cements his position at the very top of his craft. However, it’s probably best reserved for a night-time viewing with slippers and a hot cup of cocoa.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/21/sir-ian-mckellen-is-magnificent-mr-holmes-review/
Now, Sir Ian McKellen is giving it a go in the little-publicised BBC funded Mr Holmes. But does it continue the trend of crafting intriguing dramas from the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
Bill Condon, director of Dreamgirls and the upcoming Beauty & the Beast live-action remake takes charge of an intriguing film that ends up having a whiff of Saturday night drama about it.
Mr Holmes follows the story of the titular character as he comes to terms with his advancing years. McKellen plays Holmes at age 93, living away from the public eye in a quiet rural location alongside his harsh housekeeper Mrs Munro (Laura Linney) and her son Roger – a wonderful Milo Parker in his first big-screen role.
Ian McKellen is simply brilliant throughout the course of the film and after years of playing Gandalf and Magneto, slows things right down in a portrayal of the detective never really seen before – he is magnificent.
Laura Linney is a good distraction from McKellen’s rather downbeat role but her character doesn’t really do enough to register and her accent wanders through numerous countries by the time the end credits roll. This is very much McKellen’s film.
Mr Holmes, much like A Little Chaos earlier this year is a slow-paced drama that would rather tackle the finer details of the script and focus on its characters then delve into unnecessary subplots and fancy special effects and there’s something charming about this simplicity.
Unfortunately though, it all just feels a little TV drama like. Because of this, you’re almost expecting a ‘To be continued…’ credit to be added at the end of the first hour – with the conclusion coming a week later.
This is a real shame as it makes Mr Holmes feel longer than it actually is. At just over 100 minutes, this is by no means a drawn-out film but the slow pace ensures things seem to take a little longer than they perhaps would in another feature.
Thankfully though, Ian McKellen’s performance is reason enough to give Mr Holmes a watch, with another being the intriguing and at times, rather unpredictable plot.
Overall, there isn’t really that much wrong with Mr Holmes but its release date is almost suicidal. Being sandwiched in between blockbusters like Jurassic World, Minions and Terminator: Genisys, it has a tough job to do and it deserves more success than I fear it will end up having.
Ian McKellen, like Meryl Streep is one of the finest living thespians and Mr Holmes only cements his position at the very top of his craft. However, it’s probably best reserved for a night-time viewing with slippers and a hot cup of cocoa.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/21/sir-ian-mckellen-is-magnificent-mr-holmes-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A stunning visual triumph.
I was a sufficient nerd to buy a “Back to the Future” T-shirt to celebrate “future day” from “Back to the Future 2” two-years ago, and I will probably be a sufficient nerd to buy a “Blade Runner” T-shirt in two-years time to celebrate the setting-date for the original film. One thing’s for sure… 2049 is never going to be long enough away to see the world of the new Blade Runner movie come to fruition: so I look forward to ironically buying that T-shirt too (assuming I make it to 88!). But I digress.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.