Search
Search results
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Darkest Lies in Books
Jul 26, 2017
Believable plot regarding child abduction (1 more)
The mystery is compelling
Frustrating protagonist, (2 more)
Extremely predictable
Good case for why civilians shouldn’t go rogue and get in the way of police work
A frustrating abduction mystery
You know that age in every teenager’s life where they start to become a little bit rebellious? Telling little white lies, sneaking out, hanging out with crowds they know the family wouldn’t approve of? It can be a scary time for parents, who knows who’s out there? The Darkest Lies is every parent’s worst nightmare and follows a mother who finds her world shattered when her daughter goes missing.
I’m going to come right out and say that this book was frustrating for me. The synopsis really caught my eye and the idea for the plot is intriguing. Unfortunately, issues with the protagonist as well as a shaky and highly predictable plot made for a mediocre experience.
The narration in this book was a little bit weird and I had a hard time getting used to it. It is primarily told using first person point of view though switches regularly to second person as Melanie speaks directly to Beth in her inner monologue. It was just uncomfortable to read.
What’s so bad about first person point of view? See the issue for me with first person narration is that it’s easy to end up alienating readers if it’s difficult to relate to the narrator, and boy did I dislike Melanie. To be blunt, she was really annoying. She was self-centered, mean-spirited, often blinded by her own hubris, and near the end has a bit of a messiah complex going which I found completely ridiculous. She was constantly complaining about the police’s incompetence, throwing herself in the way of the investigation despite being asked multiple times to back off before she could destroy their leads. “I couldn’t go home. I was too furious, too desperate to prove I was right and the police were wrong.”
I get it, she’s consumed with guilt and grief over what happened to her daughter, over not being able to protect her. Desperate people tend to lash out and do stupid things, but I just couldn’t believe anyone would be so foolish. Melanie’s antics do lead up to something important in the plot, but honestly she didn’t need any help making a fool of herself. Before all the crazy came out she was constantly breaking down every female character she encountered, often focusing in on their looks and finding ways to insult them. Neighbors, police officers working on the case, teenagers, it didn’t matter. There are numerous examples of Melanie exhibiting this jealous personality throughout the course of the book.
She spends more time going on drunken rampages pointing fingers at everyone in town, harassing the police, treating her husband like garbage while emotionally cheating with a friend, and avoiding actually seeing and being there for her daughter. While her awful actions over the course of the book is an important aspect of the plot, I just couldn’t justify it because she never learns and remains stubborn even after being told off multiple times. Add on top how stereotypically reckless she acts at the end instead of seeking help from the police because of course she doesn’t need them and I just couldn’t dig the story.
I liked the central idea around the dangers of teens sneaking out and trusting strangers, but the story meandered so much it kind of gets lost in Melanie’s mental collapse and crazed search for the culprit. The plot attempts to use some misdirection to keep the reader guessing but the construction was just sloppy, and the actual culprit isn’t even the character that Melanie cares about the most. Every “bad” character is so blatantly obvious that the advertised twist is really easy to see. I kept on reading because I wanted to know the how and the why. I think there was potential here, and if the author wanted to stick to the narrative that Mel is actually really nice and is just being manipulated then why does she remain every bit as petty and controlling? She is still unable to see past her own emotions and unable to learn from her mistakes. I wished that this could’ve ended with more character growth for the main character.
I’m going to come right out and say that this book was frustrating for me. The synopsis really caught my eye and the idea for the plot is intriguing. Unfortunately, issues with the protagonist as well as a shaky and highly predictable plot made for a mediocre experience.
The narration in this book was a little bit weird and I had a hard time getting used to it. It is primarily told using first person point of view though switches regularly to second person as Melanie speaks directly to Beth in her inner monologue. It was just uncomfortable to read.
What’s so bad about first person point of view? See the issue for me with first person narration is that it’s easy to end up alienating readers if it’s difficult to relate to the narrator, and boy did I dislike Melanie. To be blunt, she was really annoying. She was self-centered, mean-spirited, often blinded by her own hubris, and near the end has a bit of a messiah complex going which I found completely ridiculous. She was constantly complaining about the police’s incompetence, throwing herself in the way of the investigation despite being asked multiple times to back off before she could destroy their leads. “I couldn’t go home. I was too furious, too desperate to prove I was right and the police were wrong.”
I get it, she’s consumed with guilt and grief over what happened to her daughter, over not being able to protect her. Desperate people tend to lash out and do stupid things, but I just couldn’t believe anyone would be so foolish. Melanie’s antics do lead up to something important in the plot, but honestly she didn’t need any help making a fool of herself. Before all the crazy came out she was constantly breaking down every female character she encountered, often focusing in on their looks and finding ways to insult them. Neighbors, police officers working on the case, teenagers, it didn’t matter. There are numerous examples of Melanie exhibiting this jealous personality throughout the course of the book.
She spends more time going on drunken rampages pointing fingers at everyone in town, harassing the police, treating her husband like garbage while emotionally cheating with a friend, and avoiding actually seeing and being there for her daughter. While her awful actions over the course of the book is an important aspect of the plot, I just couldn’t justify it because she never learns and remains stubborn even after being told off multiple times. Add on top how stereotypically reckless she acts at the end instead of seeking help from the police because of course she doesn’t need them and I just couldn’t dig the story.
I liked the central idea around the dangers of teens sneaking out and trusting strangers, but the story meandered so much it kind of gets lost in Melanie’s mental collapse and crazed search for the culprit. The plot attempts to use some misdirection to keep the reader guessing but the construction was just sloppy, and the actual culprit isn’t even the character that Melanie cares about the most. Every “bad” character is so blatantly obvious that the advertised twist is really easy to see. I kept on reading because I wanted to know the how and the why. I think there was potential here, and if the author wanted to stick to the narrative that Mel is actually really nice and is just being manipulated then why does she remain every bit as petty and controlling? She is still unable to see past her own emotions and unable to learn from her mistakes. I wished that this could’ve ended with more character growth for the main character.
Adventure and Redemption
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The best movie of the summer has arrived, and it’s Star Trek Into Darkness!
There are so many cool things about J.J. Abrams second adventure in the beloved universe created all those years ago by Gene Roddenberry. But the best way to experience this movie is cold, devoid of any internet spoilers, if such a thing is possible in this day and age. That being said, here’s what I got for you.
The movie begins with Captain James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine) getting in to trouble with Starfleet for violating the Prime Directive. The Prime Directive is the United Federation of Plants number one rule against alerting primitive cultures to things that they are not nearly ready to grasp (i.e. space travel). But Kirk manages to avoid his punishment because Starfleet has a bigger problem on its hands: a rogue agent, named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) is attacking Federation facilities on Earth.
Admiral Markus (Peter Weller) gives Jim Kirk orders to kill Harrison, who has managed to escape Earth and hide on Kronos, the Klingon homeworld. So Kirk, along with his trusty crew including the ever-logical Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto), James “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), warp to the Neutral Zone that separates Federation space from the Klingon Empire. Only they discover that this mission – including the identity of the fugitive Harrison – is not what it seems.
That’s all I am giving you for plot details. Go see the movie!
And when you do, watch for the cleverness of the screenwriters. There are many classic Trek littered throughout the film including characters, place names and alien species that a Trekkie, excuse me… Trekker, will be hooting and hollering at. But this movie isn’t solely for the die hard Trekkers. There is enough action and excitement to keep even the most hard to please moviegoer entertained.
Abrams got a lot of flack for his 2009 reboot of the franchise, and most likely he will get it again for this film. But this time around, Abrams does stay closer to the virtues of the original universe including the bond of the Enterprise crew and the close friendships among Kirk, Spock and Bones. Abrams manages to draw nice moments of tension and comedy alike from the entire crew.
Our main characters do shine through though. Pine brings just the right amount of swagger to Kirk, Quinto gives both the humor and emotional intensity within Spock’s struggle to balance logic and emotion. But both of these actors have to work overtime to even be on the same level as Cumberbatch, who brings muscle and old-school, butt kicking style to the villain’s role.
The other thing that I really enjoyed, again without giving too much of the plot away, is the films willingness to acknowledge that we have strayed from the original story of Kirk and crew, and how the plot can draw on that to help strengthen the story. Once you see it, you will know what I am talking about.
I saw the movie in 3D, though I am of the impression that 3D is getting a little overrated these days. I am just not blown out of the water by the 3D effects that we are seeing in movies. The one thing that I was truly grateful for is that they didn’t throw it in your face, too much. There were moments where they had things fly at you, but for the most part it wasn’t the emphasis which allowed it to play out nicely.
What are you doing still reading? Get out there and see this movie. If you don’t, you will be sorry you hadn’t as everyone and their mom will be talking about this movie come Monday. I, myself, will be seeing it for a second time this Friday hoping to spot things I missed this first time around. The movie made people laugh, cry, and hang on to the edge of your seat. As a Star Wars fan, I loved this movie. And really can’t wait to see what Abrams does with the next installment (as well as Episode 7).
There are so many cool things about J.J. Abrams second adventure in the beloved universe created all those years ago by Gene Roddenberry. But the best way to experience this movie is cold, devoid of any internet spoilers, if such a thing is possible in this day and age. That being said, here’s what I got for you.
The movie begins with Captain James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine) getting in to trouble with Starfleet for violating the Prime Directive. The Prime Directive is the United Federation of Plants number one rule against alerting primitive cultures to things that they are not nearly ready to grasp (i.e. space travel). But Kirk manages to avoid his punishment because Starfleet has a bigger problem on its hands: a rogue agent, named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) is attacking Federation facilities on Earth.
Admiral Markus (Peter Weller) gives Jim Kirk orders to kill Harrison, who has managed to escape Earth and hide on Kronos, the Klingon homeworld. So Kirk, along with his trusty crew including the ever-logical Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto), James “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), warp to the Neutral Zone that separates Federation space from the Klingon Empire. Only they discover that this mission – including the identity of the fugitive Harrison – is not what it seems.
That’s all I am giving you for plot details. Go see the movie!
And when you do, watch for the cleverness of the screenwriters. There are many classic Trek littered throughout the film including characters, place names and alien species that a Trekkie, excuse me… Trekker, will be hooting and hollering at. But this movie isn’t solely for the die hard Trekkers. There is enough action and excitement to keep even the most hard to please moviegoer entertained.
Abrams got a lot of flack for his 2009 reboot of the franchise, and most likely he will get it again for this film. But this time around, Abrams does stay closer to the virtues of the original universe including the bond of the Enterprise crew and the close friendships among Kirk, Spock and Bones. Abrams manages to draw nice moments of tension and comedy alike from the entire crew.
Our main characters do shine through though. Pine brings just the right amount of swagger to Kirk, Quinto gives both the humor and emotional intensity within Spock’s struggle to balance logic and emotion. But both of these actors have to work overtime to even be on the same level as Cumberbatch, who brings muscle and old-school, butt kicking style to the villain’s role.
The other thing that I really enjoyed, again without giving too much of the plot away, is the films willingness to acknowledge that we have strayed from the original story of Kirk and crew, and how the plot can draw on that to help strengthen the story. Once you see it, you will know what I am talking about.
I saw the movie in 3D, though I am of the impression that 3D is getting a little overrated these days. I am just not blown out of the water by the 3D effects that we are seeing in movies. The one thing that I was truly grateful for is that they didn’t throw it in your face, too much. There were moments where they had things fly at you, but for the most part it wasn’t the emphasis which allowed it to play out nicely.
What are you doing still reading? Get out there and see this movie. If you don’t, you will be sorry you hadn’t as everyone and their mom will be talking about this movie come Monday. I, myself, will be seeing it for a second time this Friday hoping to spot things I missed this first time around. The movie made people laugh, cry, and hang on to the edge of your seat. As a Star Wars fan, I loved this movie. And really can’t wait to see what Abrams does with the next installment (as well as Episode 7).
Merissa (13931 KP) created a post
Mar 15, 2021
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 8, 2021
An entertaining pose-struck by Johansson and Pugh
A long time in the waiting (again) but "Black Widow" is an excellent addition to the Marvel canon: almost a "Rogue One" in the series, taking us back to fill in some gaps after "Captain America: Civil War". It's just great to have ANY Marvel back in the cinema.... that Michael Giacchino Marvel tune set the hairs going on the back of my neck!
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated By the Feet of Men in Books
Oct 5, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-80.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
By the Feet of Men by Grant Price is a very good post-apocalyptic novel, full of adventures and danger. I am glad I got the chance to read and review this book. Thank you to the author, Grant Price, for sending me a copy of his book in exchange for my honest review.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
The book is set in a post-apocalyptic world, where the world’s population has been decimated by the Change, a chain reaction of events triggered by global warming. Governments have fallen and cities have crumbled. The productions have stopped. The Alps region, which contains the continent’s fresh water, has become a closed state with heavily fortified borders.
The ones that managed to survive cling on by trading through the Runners, truck drivers who deliver cargo and take a percentage. Two Runners, Cassady and Ghazi are called to deliver medical supplies to a research base deep in the Italian desert, where scientists claim to be building a machine that could reverse the effects of the Change.
On this journey they will be joined by a collection of other Runners, all of whom have something to prove and have a story of their own. Standing in their way are starving nomads, crumbling cities, hostile weather and a rogue state set to destroy the convoy. And there’s another problem: Cassady is close to losing his nerve.
<b><i>My Thoughts: </i></b>
The world building in By the Feet of Men is very interesting and very well described, especially the part about the Change and the Koalition. From the beginning, we get a very good idea of what kind of world we are living in now, from global warming, to the starving nomads, to how the Runners make a living. I think that was a very good introduction to the new normal that we are about to engage in.
I think perhaps due to the elaborate description, I found the beginning quite slow. The true adventure and road trip doesn’t start until halfway through the book. Once the adventure begins, though, many things happen in short spaces of time. The pacing is quite fast until the very end. The book contains brutal and graphic details, so it may contain a lot of trigger warnings and I wouldn’t recommend it for the faint hearted people.
I loved Cassady and Ghazi and really enjoyed their backstories.
The way how they made decisions based on their past experiences, which were sometimes very different. I love the constant battle they seem to have between what is right and wrong, when a decision has to be made quite fast to ensure their survival. Sometimes, their survival might mean leaving someone behind, and not both of them would agree that this is the right decision to be made. However, I think there is something much more difficult than making such a decision, and that’s living with the consequences.
Apart from the main characters, I had a very hard time remembering the other characters and their backstories. This made me annoyed a few times. I am very good at remembering side characters, and I usually prefer them to the main characters. However. this wasn’t the case for this book. And this is something that really bothers me.
I was quite intrigued about the ending.
I enjoyed it and I liked how it ended. My initial thoughts were that it was very realistic. It also had an ending that I haven’t seen too much explored in any post-apocalyptic fiction I’ve read or seen. I was a bit disappointed by the lack of explanation to some points. However, I think the main characters’ stories and experiences in the end of the book contributed to a balanced and emotional ending.
I definitely recommend By the Feet of Men to all fans of post-apocalyptic fiction. Something new and fresh, unexplored anywhere else and full of adventure and realistic brutality. I am sure you will enjoy it.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-80.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
By the Feet of Men by Grant Price is a very good post-apocalyptic novel, full of adventures and danger. I am glad I got the chance to read and review this book. Thank you to the author, Grant Price, for sending me a copy of his book in exchange for my honest review.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
The book is set in a post-apocalyptic world, where the world’s population has been decimated by the Change, a chain reaction of events triggered by global warming. Governments have fallen and cities have crumbled. The productions have stopped. The Alps region, which contains the continent’s fresh water, has become a closed state with heavily fortified borders.
The ones that managed to survive cling on by trading through the Runners, truck drivers who deliver cargo and take a percentage. Two Runners, Cassady and Ghazi are called to deliver medical supplies to a research base deep in the Italian desert, where scientists claim to be building a machine that could reverse the effects of the Change.
On this journey they will be joined by a collection of other Runners, all of whom have something to prove and have a story of their own. Standing in their way are starving nomads, crumbling cities, hostile weather and a rogue state set to destroy the convoy. And there’s another problem: Cassady is close to losing his nerve.
<b><i>My Thoughts: </i></b>
The world building in By the Feet of Men is very interesting and very well described, especially the part about the Change and the Koalition. From the beginning, we get a very good idea of what kind of world we are living in now, from global warming, to the starving nomads, to how the Runners make a living. I think that was a very good introduction to the new normal that we are about to engage in.
I think perhaps due to the elaborate description, I found the beginning quite slow. The true adventure and road trip doesn’t start until halfway through the book. Once the adventure begins, though, many things happen in short spaces of time. The pacing is quite fast until the very end. The book contains brutal and graphic details, so it may contain a lot of trigger warnings and I wouldn’t recommend it for the faint hearted people.
I loved Cassady and Ghazi and really enjoyed their backstories.
The way how they made decisions based on their past experiences, which were sometimes very different. I love the constant battle they seem to have between what is right and wrong, when a decision has to be made quite fast to ensure their survival. Sometimes, their survival might mean leaving someone behind, and not both of them would agree that this is the right decision to be made. However, I think there is something much more difficult than making such a decision, and that’s living with the consequences.
Apart from the main characters, I had a very hard time remembering the other characters and their backstories. This made me annoyed a few times. I am very good at remembering side characters, and I usually prefer them to the main characters. However. this wasn’t the case for this book. And this is something that really bothers me.
I was quite intrigued about the ending.
I enjoyed it and I liked how it ended. My initial thoughts were that it was very realistic. It also had an ending that I haven’t seen too much explored in any post-apocalyptic fiction I’ve read or seen. I was a bit disappointed by the lack of explanation to some points. However, I think the main characters’ stories and experiences in the end of the book contributed to a balanced and emotional ending.
I definitely recommend By the Feet of Men to all fans of post-apocalyptic fiction. Something new and fresh, unexplored anywhere else and full of adventure and realistic brutality. I am sure you will enjoy it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Well multiversed.
In the latest Marvel film (notably now available with the snazzy new Marvel production logo at the start) Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”) plays the titular hero: a neurosurgeon with exceptional skills, an encyclopedic knowledge of discographies and an ego to rival Donald Trump.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.