Search
Search results
Better than Suicide Squad
Did you catch the 2016 DCEU disappointment SUICIDE SQUAD with Will Smith as Deadshot and Jared Leto as the Joker? Many people (myself included) thought that that film was "just fine, nothing special" but were impressed with the way Margot Robbie handled the Harley Quinn character and wished for a standalone film that featured the Harley Quinn character.
Be careful what you wish for.
BIRDS OF PREY (AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN) is the answer to that wish and while it is slightly better than SUICIDE SQUAD, it still isn't all that....well...Fantabulous... of a film.
BIRDS OF PREY (which I hear is now being relabeled HARLEY QUINN: BIRDS OF PREY) is produced by Margot Robbie's production company and features an all female lead cast (the villain is a male) and a female Writer and a female Director. Consequently, this is a "female empowerment" film where the self-described "tough chicks" band together to defeat the male villain.
I applaud the effort and the idea behind the movie, but as a film, this one didn't quite work for me.
I start with the main focus of this film - Harley Quinn. This is just not a character, I discovered, that I want to spend an entire film with. She is, at it turns out, a very good SUPPORTING character, but not one that is interesting enough (at least for me) to carry a whole movie. I will give Margot Robbie credit...her interpretation of the character is interesting and that performance kept me focused throughout.
The other Birds of Prey are just as interesting. For the first time in I can't tell you, Rosie Perez did not annoy me in her role. She played earnest, frustrated Police Officer Renee Montoya and I found myself rooting for her when she was on the screen. Same goes for Jurnee Smollett-Bell's interpretation of Black Canary a character I knew very little about and was intrigued (though her "Super Power" was suddenly sprung on the audience with very little foreshadowing - foreshadowing that could have helped). And, finally, Mary Elizabeth Winstead almost steals the film as the revenge-seeking Huntress, a character I really enjoyed and hope I see again (though, I'm learning my lesson - let it be as a supporting character in another film and not her own, standalone film).
So, this film has 4 interesting characters at the top, but the issue is that they don't come together as a team until VERY late in the film (in a finale showdown that was the highlight of the film for me), so I really couldn't tell if there was any chemistry between these characters/actresses. I think there MIGHT have been, but no real sample size to tell.
Fairing less well as a character was Ewan McGregor's one-note take on super-narcissistic Roman Sionis/Black Mask. The character was pretty much in front of you at the start of the film and was still the same one-note character at the end. Also not "doing it for me" was Ella Jay Basco as Cassandra Cain, the street kid that becomes the focal point of the bad guys in the film (and the character the Birds of Prey must band together to save). I didn't much care for this character - or the performance - so I had no real emotional investment in whether or not the Birds of Prey could save her.
The Direction by Cathy Yan is professional and competent and the final showdown does show signs of originality and brilliance. I'll give her credit, she caught my attention with the last 1/2 hour of this film - much more so than she did with the first 79 minutes.
A better effort at this type of anti-hero comic book adventure (certainly better than SUICIDE SQUAD) but the DCEU still has not stuck the landing on this.
I encourage them to keep trying.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Be careful what you wish for.
BIRDS OF PREY (AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN) is the answer to that wish and while it is slightly better than SUICIDE SQUAD, it still isn't all that....well...Fantabulous... of a film.
BIRDS OF PREY (which I hear is now being relabeled HARLEY QUINN: BIRDS OF PREY) is produced by Margot Robbie's production company and features an all female lead cast (the villain is a male) and a female Writer and a female Director. Consequently, this is a "female empowerment" film where the self-described "tough chicks" band together to defeat the male villain.
I applaud the effort and the idea behind the movie, but as a film, this one didn't quite work for me.
I start with the main focus of this film - Harley Quinn. This is just not a character, I discovered, that I want to spend an entire film with. She is, at it turns out, a very good SUPPORTING character, but not one that is interesting enough (at least for me) to carry a whole movie. I will give Margot Robbie credit...her interpretation of the character is interesting and that performance kept me focused throughout.
The other Birds of Prey are just as interesting. For the first time in I can't tell you, Rosie Perez did not annoy me in her role. She played earnest, frustrated Police Officer Renee Montoya and I found myself rooting for her when she was on the screen. Same goes for Jurnee Smollett-Bell's interpretation of Black Canary a character I knew very little about and was intrigued (though her "Super Power" was suddenly sprung on the audience with very little foreshadowing - foreshadowing that could have helped). And, finally, Mary Elizabeth Winstead almost steals the film as the revenge-seeking Huntress, a character I really enjoyed and hope I see again (though, I'm learning my lesson - let it be as a supporting character in another film and not her own, standalone film).
So, this film has 4 interesting characters at the top, but the issue is that they don't come together as a team until VERY late in the film (in a finale showdown that was the highlight of the film for me), so I really couldn't tell if there was any chemistry between these characters/actresses. I think there MIGHT have been, but no real sample size to tell.
Fairing less well as a character was Ewan McGregor's one-note take on super-narcissistic Roman Sionis/Black Mask. The character was pretty much in front of you at the start of the film and was still the same one-note character at the end. Also not "doing it for me" was Ella Jay Basco as Cassandra Cain, the street kid that becomes the focal point of the bad guys in the film (and the character the Birds of Prey must band together to save). I didn't much care for this character - or the performance - so I had no real emotional investment in whether or not the Birds of Prey could save her.
The Direction by Cathy Yan is professional and competent and the final showdown does show signs of originality and brilliance. I'll give her credit, she caught my attention with the last 1/2 hour of this film - much more so than she did with the first 79 minutes.
A better effort at this type of anti-hero comic book adventure (certainly better than SUICIDE SQUAD) but the DCEU still has not stuck the landing on this.
I encourage them to keep trying.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwiâs original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just⌠ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesnât always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didnât enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesnât hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with itâs silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but donât think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwiâs original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just⌠ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesnât always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didnât enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesnât hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with itâs silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but donât think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
Film tie-in
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Nominated for an Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe,Trumbo is a recent film based on the original biography Dalton Trumbo written by Bruce Cook in 1977. Its adaptation to film provided the perfect opportunity to republish this extremely well researched book. With a forward written by John McNamara, the screenwriter of the motion picture, the story of Dalton Trumboâs life is just as intriguing as it was almost forty years ago. But who is Trumbo?
If, like me, you have never heard of Trumbo or even the infamous âHollywood Ten,â it may take a while for it to become clear as to why it was worth Cookâs time to produce a book about the man. Dalton Trumbo was a well-known screenwriter of films such as Papillon, Lonely Are The Brave and Roman Holiday as well as author of the novel Johnny Got His Gun. However these are not all he is famous for. During his life, Trumbo became a member of the Communist Party, which Hollywood branded as an Un-American Activity and thus blacklisted him, as well as other screenwriters, directors and actors. Ten of these men, Trumbo included, were imprisoned for their political beliefs â yet nothing prevented Trumbo from continuing his fairly successful career.
Interestingly, Cook begins the book with the final stages of Trumboâs life. At time of writing Trumbo was still alive, although rather poorly. After contracting lung cancer, having a lung removed, and suffering a heart attack, Trumbo was a very sick man; nonetheless he was still enthusiastic about being interviewed and telling his personal story.
From his childhood, to his evening shifts at a bakery, Cook details Trumboâs early life, emphasizing the hard upbringing he had before he found himself in the world of Hollywood. Although roughly 75% of the book focuses on Trumboâs career, Cook highlights Trumbo as a family man, with both a wife and three children who he absolutely adores.
Cook constantly refers to the Hollywood Ten as a concept that the reader should already be familiar with. Granted, someone who picks up this book is more likely to do so having a prior interest in the central figure, and thus already know about his background; however those ignorant on the topic eventually gather a better understanding on the topic once reaching the relevant chapters. It also becomes clearer why Trumbo is worth reading/writing about â he may have been blacklisted, but he managed to break through all the barriers and reinstate his name and many others.
Reading this half a century after the event, it seems strange that Trumbo was imprisoned. He had not done anything intrinsically wrong, it was purely prejudice against his political beliefs that got him into the mess he found himself. But when you consider the events of the time: World War Two, the Cold War, the Korean War, and Vietnam; it is understandable why many feared those who claimed to be Communists.
Cookâs narrative does not flow as a story, and much of it is broken up with quotes from various people he interviewed. The timeline jumps about between past and present (1970s), which occasionally gets a bit confusing. A large part of the book is spent analyzing many of Trumboâs works â both for screen and written formats â which, unless you have a particular interest, can be a little tedious.
It has got to be said that Bruce Cook was an exemplary writer with a great eye for detail. He did not jump to conclusions or only talk about things from his point of view. Instead he interviewed, what seems like, everyone who ever met Trumbo, and based his writing on fact backed up with numerous quotes and citations.
This edition of Trumbo contains a selection of photographs taken on the set of the movie. Disappointingly it does not contain any of Trumbo himself â you would think that some photos could have been tracked down!
Trumbo is not a book that will interest everyone. Most people today â particularly in England â will probably be unaware of who Dalton Trumbo was, and thus would only seek out this publication due to a fascination with film production. I have not seen the film, but after reading this and discovering how books go from novels, to screenplays to moving image, it would be interesting to find out which parts of Trumboâs life made it onto the big screen.
Nominated for an Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe,Trumbo is a recent film based on the original biography Dalton Trumbo written by Bruce Cook in 1977. Its adaptation to film provided the perfect opportunity to republish this extremely well researched book. With a forward written by John McNamara, the screenwriter of the motion picture, the story of Dalton Trumboâs life is just as intriguing as it was almost forty years ago. But who is Trumbo?
If, like me, you have never heard of Trumbo or even the infamous âHollywood Ten,â it may take a while for it to become clear as to why it was worth Cookâs time to produce a book about the man. Dalton Trumbo was a well-known screenwriter of films such as Papillon, Lonely Are The Brave and Roman Holiday as well as author of the novel Johnny Got His Gun. However these are not all he is famous for. During his life, Trumbo became a member of the Communist Party, which Hollywood branded as an Un-American Activity and thus blacklisted him, as well as other screenwriters, directors and actors. Ten of these men, Trumbo included, were imprisoned for their political beliefs â yet nothing prevented Trumbo from continuing his fairly successful career.
Interestingly, Cook begins the book with the final stages of Trumboâs life. At time of writing Trumbo was still alive, although rather poorly. After contracting lung cancer, having a lung removed, and suffering a heart attack, Trumbo was a very sick man; nonetheless he was still enthusiastic about being interviewed and telling his personal story.
From his childhood, to his evening shifts at a bakery, Cook details Trumboâs early life, emphasizing the hard upbringing he had before he found himself in the world of Hollywood. Although roughly 75% of the book focuses on Trumboâs career, Cook highlights Trumbo as a family man, with both a wife and three children who he absolutely adores.
Cook constantly refers to the Hollywood Ten as a concept that the reader should already be familiar with. Granted, someone who picks up this book is more likely to do so having a prior interest in the central figure, and thus already know about his background; however those ignorant on the topic eventually gather a better understanding on the topic once reaching the relevant chapters. It also becomes clearer why Trumbo is worth reading/writing about â he may have been blacklisted, but he managed to break through all the barriers and reinstate his name and many others.
Reading this half a century after the event, it seems strange that Trumbo was imprisoned. He had not done anything intrinsically wrong, it was purely prejudice against his political beliefs that got him into the mess he found himself. But when you consider the events of the time: World War Two, the Cold War, the Korean War, and Vietnam; it is understandable why many feared those who claimed to be Communists.
Cookâs narrative does not flow as a story, and much of it is broken up with quotes from various people he interviewed. The timeline jumps about between past and present (1970s), which occasionally gets a bit confusing. A large part of the book is spent analyzing many of Trumboâs works â both for screen and written formats â which, unless you have a particular interest, can be a little tedious.
It has got to be said that Bruce Cook was an exemplary writer with a great eye for detail. He did not jump to conclusions or only talk about things from his point of view. Instead he interviewed, what seems like, everyone who ever met Trumbo, and based his writing on fact backed up with numerous quotes and citations.
This edition of Trumbo contains a selection of photographs taken on the set of the movie. Disappointingly it does not contain any of Trumbo himself â you would think that some photos could have been tracked down!
Trumbo is not a book that will interest everyone. Most people today â particularly in England â will probably be unaware of who Dalton Trumbo was, and thus would only seek out this publication due to a fascination with film production. I have not seen the film, but after reading this and discovering how books go from novels, to screenplays to moving image, it would be interesting to find out which parts of Trumboâs life made it onto the big screen.
My rating: 3.5
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Nominated for an Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe, <i>Trumbo</i> is a recent film based on the original biography <i>Dalton Trumbo</i> written by Bruce Cook in 1977. Its adaptation to film provided the perfect opportunity to republish this extremely well researched book. With a forward written by John McNamara, the screenwriter of the motion picture, the story of Dalton Trumboâs life is just as intriguing as it was almost forty years ago. But who is Trumbo?
If, like me, you have never heard of Trumbo or even the infamous âHollywood Ten,â it may take a while for it to become clear as to why it was worth Cookâs time to produce a book about the man. Dalton Trumbo was a well-known screenwriter of films such as <i>Papillon, Lonely Are The Brave</i> and <i>Roman Holiday</i> as well as author of the novel <i>Johnny Got His Gun</i>. However these are not all he is famous for. During his life, Trumbo became a member of the Communist Party, which Hollywood branded as an Un-American Activity and thus blacklisted him, as well as other screenwriters, directors and actors. Ten of these men, Trumbo included, were imprisoned for their political beliefs â yet nothing prevented Trumbo from continuing his fairly successful career.
Interestingly, Cook begins the book with the final stages of Trumboâs life. At time of writing Trumbo was still alive, although rather poorly. After contracting lung cancer, having a lung removed, and suffering a heart attack, Trumbo was a very sick man; nonetheless he was still enthusiastic about being interviewed and telling his personal story.
From his childhood, to his evening shifts at a bakery, Cook details Trumboâs early life, emphasizing the hard upbringing he had before he found himself in the world of Hollywood. Although roughly 75% of the book focuses on Trumboâs career, Cook highlights Trumbo as a family man, with both a wife and three children who he absolutely adores.
Cook constantly refers to the Hollywood Ten as a concept that the reader should already be familiar with. Granted, someone who picks up this book is more likely to do so having a prior interest in the central figure, and thus already know about his background; however those ignorant on the topic eventually gather a better understanding on the topic once reaching the relevant chapters. It also becomes clearer why Trumbo is worth reading/writing about â he may have been blacklisted, but he managed to break through all the barriers and reinstate his name and many others.
Reading this half a century after the event, it seems strange that Trumbo was imprisoned. He had not done anything intrinsically wrong, it was purely prejudice against his political beliefs that got him into the mess he found himself. But when you consider the events of the time: World War Two, the Cold War, the Korean War, and Vietnam; it is understandable why many feared those who claimed to be Communists.
Cookâs narrative does not flow as a story, and much of it is broken up with quotes from various people he interviewed. The timeline jumps about between past and present (1970s), which occasionally gets a bit confusing. A large part of the book is spent analyzing many of Trumboâs works â both for screen and written formats â which, unless you have a particular interest, can be a little tedious.
It has got to be said that Bruce Cook was an exemplary writer with a great eye for detail. He did not jump to conclusions or only talk about things from his point of view. Instead he interviewed, what seems like, everyone who ever met Trumbo, and based his writing on fact backed up with numerous quotes and citations.
This edition of <i>Trumbo</i> contains a selection of photographs taken on the set of the movie. Disappointingly it does not contain any of Trumbo himself â you would think that some photos could have been tracked down!
<i>Trumbo</i> is not a book that will interest everyone. Most people today â particularly in England â will probably be unaware of who Dalton Trumbo was, and thus would only seek out this publication due to a fascination with film production. I have not seen the film, but after reading this and discovering how books go from novels, to screenplays to moving image, it would be interesting to find out which parts of Trumboâs life made it onto the big screen.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Nominated for an Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe, <i>Trumbo</i> is a recent film based on the original biography <i>Dalton Trumbo</i> written by Bruce Cook in 1977. Its adaptation to film provided the perfect opportunity to republish this extremely well researched book. With a forward written by John McNamara, the screenwriter of the motion picture, the story of Dalton Trumboâs life is just as intriguing as it was almost forty years ago. But who is Trumbo?
If, like me, you have never heard of Trumbo or even the infamous âHollywood Ten,â it may take a while for it to become clear as to why it was worth Cookâs time to produce a book about the man. Dalton Trumbo was a well-known screenwriter of films such as <i>Papillon, Lonely Are The Brave</i> and <i>Roman Holiday</i> as well as author of the novel <i>Johnny Got His Gun</i>. However these are not all he is famous for. During his life, Trumbo became a member of the Communist Party, which Hollywood branded as an Un-American Activity and thus blacklisted him, as well as other screenwriters, directors and actors. Ten of these men, Trumbo included, were imprisoned for their political beliefs â yet nothing prevented Trumbo from continuing his fairly successful career.
Interestingly, Cook begins the book with the final stages of Trumboâs life. At time of writing Trumbo was still alive, although rather poorly. After contracting lung cancer, having a lung removed, and suffering a heart attack, Trumbo was a very sick man; nonetheless he was still enthusiastic about being interviewed and telling his personal story.
From his childhood, to his evening shifts at a bakery, Cook details Trumboâs early life, emphasizing the hard upbringing he had before he found himself in the world of Hollywood. Although roughly 75% of the book focuses on Trumboâs career, Cook highlights Trumbo as a family man, with both a wife and three children who he absolutely adores.
Cook constantly refers to the Hollywood Ten as a concept that the reader should already be familiar with. Granted, someone who picks up this book is more likely to do so having a prior interest in the central figure, and thus already know about his background; however those ignorant on the topic eventually gather a better understanding on the topic once reaching the relevant chapters. It also becomes clearer why Trumbo is worth reading/writing about â he may have been blacklisted, but he managed to break through all the barriers and reinstate his name and many others.
Reading this half a century after the event, it seems strange that Trumbo was imprisoned. He had not done anything intrinsically wrong, it was purely prejudice against his political beliefs that got him into the mess he found himself. But when you consider the events of the time: World War Two, the Cold War, the Korean War, and Vietnam; it is understandable why many feared those who claimed to be Communists.
Cookâs narrative does not flow as a story, and much of it is broken up with quotes from various people he interviewed. The timeline jumps about between past and present (1970s), which occasionally gets a bit confusing. A large part of the book is spent analyzing many of Trumboâs works â both for screen and written formats â which, unless you have a particular interest, can be a little tedious.
It has got to be said that Bruce Cook was an exemplary writer with a great eye for detail. He did not jump to conclusions or only talk about things from his point of view. Instead he interviewed, what seems like, everyone who ever met Trumbo, and based his writing on fact backed up with numerous quotes and citations.
This edition of <i>Trumbo</i> contains a selection of photographs taken on the set of the movie. Disappointingly it does not contain any of Trumbo himself â you would think that some photos could have been tracked down!
<i>Trumbo</i> is not a book that will interest everyone. Most people today â particularly in England â will probably be unaware of who Dalton Trumbo was, and thus would only seek out this publication due to a fascination with film production. I have not seen the film, but after reading this and discovering how books go from novels, to screenplays to moving image, it would be interesting to find out which parts of Trumboâs life made it onto the big screen.
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated A Short History of the World in Books
Aug 5, 2018
Best known for his classic fiction, HG Wells also wrote a non-fiction book summarising the history of the world, going from the history of the solar system, right up to the date the book was published in 1922.
As I hoped, the book often reads like a novel, with 67 distinct sections, each like a mini story. In order to fit the history of the whole world into one book, by nature the story telling ranges from nice and rapid, to a little too rapid. I found it rather like a catalogue of numerous interesting little nuggets of information. Despite covering events from all over the world, the topics often flow seamlessly from one topic to the next. Due to so many overlapping topics, this history of the world isn't told in a linear purely chronological pattern, but has to go backwards a little, now and again.
At various times throughout, the stories are gripping and Wells successfully brings history to life. I particularly liked the various sections on religious leaders. Appropriately, Wells tackles religion as would any unbiased historian-become storyteller. I also enjoyed the beginning, where Wells paints a crystal clear picture of our solar system and the vast empty space that our dramas are within. His description of our galaxy sounds nothing short of beautiful.
The book was meant to be predominantly factual, but Wells did include a substantial amount of speculation and opinion. This does not distract from the storyline, but adds value in generating the concepts of the time periods.
It covers progress and prosperity as much as carnage and decimation, and provides good explanations of everything it covers. (Although it would benefit from more illustrations). At times it feels detail heavy but also gives the reader a feel for each age - the book is not limited to which country went to war with which country and when, but also examines changes in ways of thinking through the ages. Including the Ancient Greek philosophers, Arabian progress in maths and science, the advent of experimental science, and the development of political and social ideas in Wellsâ time.
I was reassured to learn that despite not studying the history of the world in its entirety in school, I was already familiar with much of the bookâs content. Having said that, there were also topics where I really felt I was learning something. I read Wellsâ opinion on why the Roman Empire fell, and how the industrial revolution was not merely a revolution in machinery, but rather a revolution in how people conducted their everyday lives. There were also some important figures from history described that were never mentioned in my school days, particularly Charlemagne and Roger Bacon.
Towards the end of the book, Wells correctly predicts another war like that of the Great War. However his final message was one of faith and hope in humanityâs progress.
With such a huge scope, Wells must have struggled with deciding what topics to include and what to exclude. I thought he ought to have included a touch more detail on Ancient Egypt, and on the causes of the Great War (World War 1). As a British person myself I would have liked to have seen more on British history.
Likewise, if the book were written now rather than 1922 I began to speculate on what he would and wouldnât have included. I imagine there would certainly be a section on World War 2, rockets into space, the internet, and 9/11. He would have provided an excellently conducted section on how humans are destroying the planet.
One of the beauties of this book has to be its availability. If you type âshort history of the worldâ into Google, the free PDF of this book takes up much of the first 2 pages of results. If youâre sketchy on world history, this book will fill in the main blanks, and is worth a read if this is your aim, especially if you wish to do so quickly. The fact that itâs split up into so many succinct sections also means that you can pick up and put down the book as often as opportunity allows. It also works well as a reference book, as it does not need to be read from cover to cover in order to look up one particular event or time period.
In summary, this book would be a welcome addition to bookshelf (or ebook library) of the general non-fiction fan or historian.
Find more of my book review on www.bookblogbycari.com
As I hoped, the book often reads like a novel, with 67 distinct sections, each like a mini story. In order to fit the history of the whole world into one book, by nature the story telling ranges from nice and rapid, to a little too rapid. I found it rather like a catalogue of numerous interesting little nuggets of information. Despite covering events from all over the world, the topics often flow seamlessly from one topic to the next. Due to so many overlapping topics, this history of the world isn't told in a linear purely chronological pattern, but has to go backwards a little, now and again.
At various times throughout, the stories are gripping and Wells successfully brings history to life. I particularly liked the various sections on religious leaders. Appropriately, Wells tackles religion as would any unbiased historian-become storyteller. I also enjoyed the beginning, where Wells paints a crystal clear picture of our solar system and the vast empty space that our dramas are within. His description of our galaxy sounds nothing short of beautiful.
The book was meant to be predominantly factual, but Wells did include a substantial amount of speculation and opinion. This does not distract from the storyline, but adds value in generating the concepts of the time periods.
It covers progress and prosperity as much as carnage and decimation, and provides good explanations of everything it covers. (Although it would benefit from more illustrations). At times it feels detail heavy but also gives the reader a feel for each age - the book is not limited to which country went to war with which country and when, but also examines changes in ways of thinking through the ages. Including the Ancient Greek philosophers, Arabian progress in maths and science, the advent of experimental science, and the development of political and social ideas in Wellsâ time.
I was reassured to learn that despite not studying the history of the world in its entirety in school, I was already familiar with much of the bookâs content. Having said that, there were also topics where I really felt I was learning something. I read Wellsâ opinion on why the Roman Empire fell, and how the industrial revolution was not merely a revolution in machinery, but rather a revolution in how people conducted their everyday lives. There were also some important figures from history described that were never mentioned in my school days, particularly Charlemagne and Roger Bacon.
Towards the end of the book, Wells correctly predicts another war like that of the Great War. However his final message was one of faith and hope in humanityâs progress.
With such a huge scope, Wells must have struggled with deciding what topics to include and what to exclude. I thought he ought to have included a touch more detail on Ancient Egypt, and on the causes of the Great War (World War 1). As a British person myself I would have liked to have seen more on British history.
Likewise, if the book were written now rather than 1922 I began to speculate on what he would and wouldnât have included. I imagine there would certainly be a section on World War 2, rockets into space, the internet, and 9/11. He would have provided an excellently conducted section on how humans are destroying the planet.
One of the beauties of this book has to be its availability. If you type âshort history of the worldâ into Google, the free PDF of this book takes up much of the first 2 pages of results. If youâre sketchy on world history, this book will fill in the main blanks, and is worth a read if this is your aim, especially if you wish to do so quickly. The fact that itâs split up into so many succinct sections also means that you can pick up and put down the book as often as opportunity allows. It also works well as a reference book, as it does not need to be read from cover to cover in order to look up one particular event or time period.
In summary, this book would be a welcome addition to bookshelf (or ebook library) of the general non-fiction fan or historian.
Find more of my book review on www.bookblogbycari.com
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Circe in Books
Aug 21, 2018
<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="http://innahcrazy.tumblr.com/">Tumblr</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>; |
<b><i>WHEN I WAS BORN, the name for what I was did not exist.<i/></b>
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/maxresdefault.jpg?w=636"/>;
I was waiting for two whole months to get this book from the library. And I finally had a chance to read Circe from Madeline Miller. A book that everyone was talking about. The only thing you were gonna see on Instagram. Well, here I am â sitting with the cool kids now, Iâve read this book.
The reason I wanted to read this book wasnât because I wanted to be part of the cool kids. Actually, it was because Greek Mythology has a special place in my heart. See, I was born in Macedonia, a country full of history, and so very close to Greece, where histories and cultures and traditions match and mix.
When I was in school, our teachers focused hard on history. Especially Roman and Greek Mythology. So yes, I grew up with Homerâs Iliad and Odyssey and yes, I know all the gods out there, what they do, who they married, who their children are.
I have read about Circe, but I have never given her any meaning, as she is not mentioned a lot in Homerâs works, as you might already know. And then suddenly, there is a book about her life. I had to read it!!!
<b><i>AND I ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT! FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART!</i></b>
This might be my favorite book of 2018!
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/img_20180625_200755_238.jpg?w=636"/>;
I enjoyed Madelineâs writing style. It was so explanatory and calm, and soothing, like swimming in nice calm waters. You would just gulp her words as you read, and before you know it, you have read 200 pages.
Circe, oh Circe! Her character was so well described â such a strong powerful woman. We start with her childhood, to her growing up, and we follow the process of how she learned things the hard way, how she is naive, and then suddenly isnât, how she discovers the power she holds within, despite everyone else mocking her and saying otherwise. We see how she decides to say no, how she is not afraid to be a rebel, and how she suffers, and loves, and protects, and cares, and survives, and lives!
You will read a story about the love a mother has toward her child, the love a woman has toward her man, the love a son has towards her mother, the love for freedom, the love for gloryâŚ
If you love Greek Mythology, you will get the chance to say hi to some of your favourite gods, nymphs, titans, monsters â Zeus, Athena, Poseidon, Prometheus, Odysseus and many more which I will fail to reveal.
I hardly believe that this is a great book for introducing Greek Mythology to new young readers. I also hardly believe that this book will change the thoughts of many people, the way they see things, the way they live, the way they think.
It was one of my favorite things about him: how he always fought for his chance.
There are a lot of side characters that give their own meaning to the story as well, and there is also Odysseus, and at times it feels as this is his story, but in the end you realized that this story belongs to Circe only.
<b><i>Do not listen to your enemy, Odysseus had once told me. Look at them. It will tell you everything.
I looked. Armed and armored, she was (Athena), from head to foot, helmet, spear, aegis, greaves. A terrifying vision: the goddess of war, ready for battle. But why had she assembled such a panoply against me, who knew nothing of combat? Unless there was something else she feared, something that made her feel somehow stripped and weak.
Instinct carried me forward, the thousand hours I had spent in my fatherâs halls, and with Odysseus polymetis, man of so many wiles.</i></b>
To all of you out there â please take your time to read this book! It will leave you breathless, inspired, motivated and it will change your life forever. It changed my life â thatâs for certain!
<b><i>WHEN I WAS BORN, the name for what I was did not exist.<i/></b>
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/maxresdefault.jpg?w=636"/>;
I was waiting for two whole months to get this book from the library. And I finally had a chance to read Circe from Madeline Miller. A book that everyone was talking about. The only thing you were gonna see on Instagram. Well, here I am â sitting with the cool kids now, Iâve read this book.
The reason I wanted to read this book wasnât because I wanted to be part of the cool kids. Actually, it was because Greek Mythology has a special place in my heart. See, I was born in Macedonia, a country full of history, and so very close to Greece, where histories and cultures and traditions match and mix.
When I was in school, our teachers focused hard on history. Especially Roman and Greek Mythology. So yes, I grew up with Homerâs Iliad and Odyssey and yes, I know all the gods out there, what they do, who they married, who their children are.
I have read about Circe, but I have never given her any meaning, as she is not mentioned a lot in Homerâs works, as you might already know. And then suddenly, there is a book about her life. I had to read it!!!
<b><i>AND I ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT! FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART!</i></b>
This might be my favorite book of 2018!
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/img_20180625_200755_238.jpg?w=636"/>;
I enjoyed Madelineâs writing style. It was so explanatory and calm, and soothing, like swimming in nice calm waters. You would just gulp her words as you read, and before you know it, you have read 200 pages.
Circe, oh Circe! Her character was so well described â such a strong powerful woman. We start with her childhood, to her growing up, and we follow the process of how she learned things the hard way, how she is naive, and then suddenly isnât, how she discovers the power she holds within, despite everyone else mocking her and saying otherwise. We see how she decides to say no, how she is not afraid to be a rebel, and how she suffers, and loves, and protects, and cares, and survives, and lives!
You will read a story about the love a mother has toward her child, the love a woman has toward her man, the love a son has towards her mother, the love for freedom, the love for gloryâŚ
If you love Greek Mythology, you will get the chance to say hi to some of your favourite gods, nymphs, titans, monsters â Zeus, Athena, Poseidon, Prometheus, Odysseus and many more which I will fail to reveal.
I hardly believe that this is a great book for introducing Greek Mythology to new young readers. I also hardly believe that this book will change the thoughts of many people, the way they see things, the way they live, the way they think.
It was one of my favorite things about him: how he always fought for his chance.
There are a lot of side characters that give their own meaning to the story as well, and there is also Odysseus, and at times it feels as this is his story, but in the end you realized that this story belongs to Circe only.
<b><i>Do not listen to your enemy, Odysseus had once told me. Look at them. It will tell you everything.
I looked. Armed and armored, she was (Athena), from head to foot, helmet, spear, aegis, greaves. A terrifying vision: the goddess of war, ready for battle. But why had she assembled such a panoply against me, who knew nothing of combat? Unless there was something else she feared, something that made her feel somehow stripped and weak.
Instinct carried me forward, the thousand hours I had spent in my fatherâs halls, and with Odysseus polymetis, man of so many wiles.</i></b>
To all of you out there â please take your time to read this book! It will leave you breathless, inspired, motivated and it will change your life forever. It changed my life â thatâs for certain!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Da Vinci Code (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
No film since âThe Last Temptation of Christâ has invoked as much controversy as The Da Vinci Code based on the book of the same name by Dan Brown. Prior to the film even being screened for the press, cries ran out to ban the film and its message that some find blasphemous. Fortunately calmer heads have prevailed and the film by Director Ron Howard has arrived in a wash of media frenzy not seen since Mel Gibsonâs The Passion of the Christ.
If you are seeing a pattern forming, you would be correct as it seems that few topics can raise ire and wrath more than the topic of religion, especially if the film proposes a viewpoint that differs from the traditional beliefs that are given by the church, bible, and history.
In the film, a monk appears to murder an elderly man who with his last ounces of strength, manages to leave a cryptic riddle on his body. The bizarre nature of the crime prompts French police inspector Fache (Jean Reno) to travel to the Louvre to investigate the crime. A clue at the crime scene causes the police to summer Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) from a lecture hall where he is signing his latest book on symbols. Since the deceased was supposed to meet Langdon earlier in the day Langdon has fallen under suspicion for the crime.
As he attempts to decipher the message at the crime scene, Langdon encounters a police cryptologists named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), who informs Robert that he is in danger and soon the duo are fleeing from the police after deciphering some hidden clues at the crime scene.
Before either Robert or Audrey knows what is happening, they are being accused of multiple murders and on the run. As the clues begin to mount, the mystery takes an even stranger turn by the discovery of an artifact that when unlocked, should contain a map.
Seeking refuge and help, the duo arrive at the estate of Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian Mc Kellen), who proceeds to tell Robert and Sophie that the clues they have uncovered are part of a cover-up that segments of the church will stop at nothing to keep secret. The nature of this secret is such that should it become public knowledge, then they very foundations of history, faith, and the church could be shaken to their core.
As the mystery becomes clearer, the group are attacked by a Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), who has been doing the violent work of someone know as The Teacher in an effort to discover the location of artifacts and those attempting to uncover the mystery.
What follows is a frantic race that travels from Paris to London in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery and unravel the true nature of the mystery and the secret that people are willing to kill for in order to protect.
While some may find the mystery, the players, and their motivations confusing, the film does grab hold and moves along at a solid pace. Ron Howard once again shows his skill by directing a film that is different from his other works, yet rich in its visuals and complexity. The scenic locales of the film enhance the mystery (For those who have not read the book), as they attempt to decipher the clues along with the characters.
The work from the cast was solid as Hanks gives a very good if restrained performance in his portrayal. Mc Kellen is a very nice blend of elegance and old world charm that lifts up every scene in which he is in.
While there are those who will lambaste the film for the message it provides, I chose to look at it as a film that does what movies should, entertain and make you think. The film is not saying its assertions are hard and cold facts, what it is doing is providing a vehicle for debate.
In college I was told that through debate comes knowledge and growth for a society. This was common in ancient Greek and Roman society where issues of the day would be debated in open forums. It seems that we as a society have become too insistent to take things at face value and have forgotten that the very nature of the human experience is to question, grow, and seek our own answers. As such the film is a great example of how Hollywood at times gets it right and provides solid entertainment that will stimulate as well as entertain.
If you are seeing a pattern forming, you would be correct as it seems that few topics can raise ire and wrath more than the topic of religion, especially if the film proposes a viewpoint that differs from the traditional beliefs that are given by the church, bible, and history.
In the film, a monk appears to murder an elderly man who with his last ounces of strength, manages to leave a cryptic riddle on his body. The bizarre nature of the crime prompts French police inspector Fache (Jean Reno) to travel to the Louvre to investigate the crime. A clue at the crime scene causes the police to summer Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) from a lecture hall where he is signing his latest book on symbols. Since the deceased was supposed to meet Langdon earlier in the day Langdon has fallen under suspicion for the crime.
As he attempts to decipher the message at the crime scene, Langdon encounters a police cryptologists named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), who informs Robert that he is in danger and soon the duo are fleeing from the police after deciphering some hidden clues at the crime scene.
Before either Robert or Audrey knows what is happening, they are being accused of multiple murders and on the run. As the clues begin to mount, the mystery takes an even stranger turn by the discovery of an artifact that when unlocked, should contain a map.
Seeking refuge and help, the duo arrive at the estate of Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian Mc Kellen), who proceeds to tell Robert and Sophie that the clues they have uncovered are part of a cover-up that segments of the church will stop at nothing to keep secret. The nature of this secret is such that should it become public knowledge, then they very foundations of history, faith, and the church could be shaken to their core.
As the mystery becomes clearer, the group are attacked by a Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), who has been doing the violent work of someone know as The Teacher in an effort to discover the location of artifacts and those attempting to uncover the mystery.
What follows is a frantic race that travels from Paris to London in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery and unravel the true nature of the mystery and the secret that people are willing to kill for in order to protect.
While some may find the mystery, the players, and their motivations confusing, the film does grab hold and moves along at a solid pace. Ron Howard once again shows his skill by directing a film that is different from his other works, yet rich in its visuals and complexity. The scenic locales of the film enhance the mystery (For those who have not read the book), as they attempt to decipher the clues along with the characters.
The work from the cast was solid as Hanks gives a very good if restrained performance in his portrayal. Mc Kellen is a very nice blend of elegance and old world charm that lifts up every scene in which he is in.
While there are those who will lambaste the film for the message it provides, I chose to look at it as a film that does what movies should, entertain and make you think. The film is not saying its assertions are hard and cold facts, what it is doing is providing a vehicle for debate.
In college I was told that through debate comes knowledge and growth for a society. This was common in ancient Greek and Roman society where issues of the day would be debated in open forums. It seems that we as a society have become too insistent to take things at face value and have forgotten that the very nature of the human experience is to question, grow, and seek our own answers. As such the film is a great example of how Hollywood at times gets it right and provides solid entertainment that will stimulate as well as entertain.
I tried to avoid much about this before seeing it and despite the internet being what it is I somehow managed to avoid spoilers.
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Slaughterhouse Rulez (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Form-Prefect of the Dead.
The Plot
Meredith Houseman (Simon Pegg) is housemaster of Sparta house in Slaughterhouse school: an ancient public school establishment steering Englandâs future greats to greatness (which probably explains a lot about the current Brexit mess!). Houseman is not in a happy place, given that his girlfriend is now in deepest darkest African doing âgood worksâ with handsome French doctors, and particularly that she is played by Margot Robbie: I would be also be sad⌠#punching!
New school starter Don Wallace (Finn Cole) is equally unhappy as he is a northern teen dragooned into attending the school by his well-meaning Mum (Jo Hartley). His strange room-mate Willoughby (Asa Butterfield) seems to be a chronic depressive; he is being picked on by the prefect-bully Clegg (Tom Rhys Harries); and his bed was previously occupied by a Viscount, since deceased under unpleasant circumstances that no-one wants to talk about. At least he has the distraction of the upper-sixth school goddess Clemsie Lawrence (Hermione Corfield) to take his mind off his woes.
All this washes over âThe Batâ â the schoolâs headmaster (Michael Sheen) â since he is engrossed in some shady deal with an evil corporation doing fracking in the school grounds. The fracking though seems to be doing more than just causing a few minor earth tremors, as ancient forces are unleashed.
The Review
The movie is positioned as a âcomedy/horrorâ, along the lines of âShaun of the Deadâ. The film also has Frost and Pegg as executive producers and they also have starring roles in the film. But there the similarities really end: this is a âCornetto filmâ without a cone of solid chocolate lurking at the bottom to enjoy.
The script (by director Crispian Mills and first-time screenwriter Henry Fitzherbert) is nowhere near as sharp as the Frost/Pegg scripts for their famous collaborations. The story overall makes precious little sense: itâs a hodge-podge of elements from many Harry Potter films (especially âThe Chamber of Secretsâ), Lindsay Andersonâs âIfâŚâ; and Roy Boultingâs âThe Guinea Pigâ; with also a sprinkling of the anarchic essence of Michael Palinâs classic âTomkinsonâs Schooldaysâ. The whole thing never manages to gel into a cohesive whole.
After the second reel, the film completely loses sight of the plot: thereâs a whole lot of running, screaming and dying going on but thereâs little logic behind any of it that I could fathom. What didnât help my comprehension of what was going on were some âCornetto-esqueâ sequences of manic editing. Images were thrown onto the screen so subliminally that any clever nuance was lost. Iâm sure at one point there was a droll (if gross) segue at a âRoman orgyâ of a girl receiving oral sex before being âeaten outâ in an entirely different way. But you would need a Blu-ray and a frame-by-frame pause function to get the joke.
Thatâs not to say that I didnât laugh a few times along the way. There are some sight gags â for example, Wooten (Kit Connor) as the lad at the bottom of the bullying pecking order, chained to a U-bend â that made me laugh, and some running jokes â for example, Frost as the head of the anti-fracking camp offering the kids drugs at every encounter â that mildly amuse. But once again hereâs a British comedy that, like the atrocious âThe Brits are Comingâ, thinks that âfunnyâ largely revolves around swearing a lot â how useful that âfrackâ sounds so similar to another word â with added bodily dismemberment.
The turns
Pegg and Frost ham it up with their usual comedy schtick well enough, and it was quite fun to see Sheen try a comedy role for a change as the conniving and supercilious headmaster. Elsewhere all the young cast put their hearts into it, but itâs again Asa Butterfield that your eyes gravitate to, due to his striking features. I last saw Asa in the excellent if harrowing WW1 drama âJourneyâs Endâ, and he here proves again that he is a One Mannâs Movies âname to watch for the futureâ.
Final thoughts
Thereâs a lot to irritate in this film. From the âzâ in the title to⌠well⌠about 80% of the film. There is no nuance or subtlety to either the writing or the direction. I think thatâs a great shame. The film has a good premise hidden in there. An adult comedy set around the ridiculous rules and rites of public schools (away from the light nonsense of âSt Triniansâ) is overdue. And the whole subject of fracking, and the conflicts surrounding the controversial techniques, hasnât yet â to my knowledge â been explored in a fictional movie. The film does have a few very funny moments. But as a whole I left the cinema with that âwasted two hoursâ feeling. Not recommended.
Meredith Houseman (Simon Pegg) is housemaster of Sparta house in Slaughterhouse school: an ancient public school establishment steering Englandâs future greats to greatness (which probably explains a lot about the current Brexit mess!). Houseman is not in a happy place, given that his girlfriend is now in deepest darkest African doing âgood worksâ with handsome French doctors, and particularly that she is played by Margot Robbie: I would be also be sad⌠#punching!
New school starter Don Wallace (Finn Cole) is equally unhappy as he is a northern teen dragooned into attending the school by his well-meaning Mum (Jo Hartley). His strange room-mate Willoughby (Asa Butterfield) seems to be a chronic depressive; he is being picked on by the prefect-bully Clegg (Tom Rhys Harries); and his bed was previously occupied by a Viscount, since deceased under unpleasant circumstances that no-one wants to talk about. At least he has the distraction of the upper-sixth school goddess Clemsie Lawrence (Hermione Corfield) to take his mind off his woes.
All this washes over âThe Batâ â the schoolâs headmaster (Michael Sheen) â since he is engrossed in some shady deal with an evil corporation doing fracking in the school grounds. The fracking though seems to be doing more than just causing a few minor earth tremors, as ancient forces are unleashed.
The Review
The movie is positioned as a âcomedy/horrorâ, along the lines of âShaun of the Deadâ. The film also has Frost and Pegg as executive producers and they also have starring roles in the film. But there the similarities really end: this is a âCornetto filmâ without a cone of solid chocolate lurking at the bottom to enjoy.
The script (by director Crispian Mills and first-time screenwriter Henry Fitzherbert) is nowhere near as sharp as the Frost/Pegg scripts for their famous collaborations. The story overall makes precious little sense: itâs a hodge-podge of elements from many Harry Potter films (especially âThe Chamber of Secretsâ), Lindsay Andersonâs âIfâŚâ; and Roy Boultingâs âThe Guinea Pigâ; with also a sprinkling of the anarchic essence of Michael Palinâs classic âTomkinsonâs Schooldaysâ. The whole thing never manages to gel into a cohesive whole.
After the second reel, the film completely loses sight of the plot: thereâs a whole lot of running, screaming and dying going on but thereâs little logic behind any of it that I could fathom. What didnât help my comprehension of what was going on were some âCornetto-esqueâ sequences of manic editing. Images were thrown onto the screen so subliminally that any clever nuance was lost. Iâm sure at one point there was a droll (if gross) segue at a âRoman orgyâ of a girl receiving oral sex before being âeaten outâ in an entirely different way. But you would need a Blu-ray and a frame-by-frame pause function to get the joke.
Thatâs not to say that I didnât laugh a few times along the way. There are some sight gags â for example, Wooten (Kit Connor) as the lad at the bottom of the bullying pecking order, chained to a U-bend â that made me laugh, and some running jokes â for example, Frost as the head of the anti-fracking camp offering the kids drugs at every encounter â that mildly amuse. But once again hereâs a British comedy that, like the atrocious âThe Brits are Comingâ, thinks that âfunnyâ largely revolves around swearing a lot â how useful that âfrackâ sounds so similar to another word â with added bodily dismemberment.
The turns
Pegg and Frost ham it up with their usual comedy schtick well enough, and it was quite fun to see Sheen try a comedy role for a change as the conniving and supercilious headmaster. Elsewhere all the young cast put their hearts into it, but itâs again Asa Butterfield that your eyes gravitate to, due to his striking features. I last saw Asa in the excellent if harrowing WW1 drama âJourneyâs Endâ, and he here proves again that he is a One Mannâs Movies âname to watch for the futureâ.
Final thoughts
Thereâs a lot to irritate in this film. From the âzâ in the title to⌠well⌠about 80% of the film. There is no nuance or subtlety to either the writing or the direction. I think thatâs a great shame. The film has a good premise hidden in there. An adult comedy set around the ridiculous rules and rites of public schools (away from the light nonsense of âSt Triniansâ) is overdue. And the whole subject of fracking, and the conflicts surrounding the controversial techniques, hasnât yet â to my knowledge â been explored in a fictional movie. The film does have a few very funny moments. But as a whole I left the cinema with that âwasted two hoursâ feeling. Not recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Passion of the Christ (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Perhaps the most controversial film of our time âThe Passion of the Christâ has arrived amidst much speculation and controversy. Not since âThe Last Temptation of Christâ has a film garnered so much controversy and that film did not have a mega-star like Mel Gibson attached to it nor a wide-release reported to reach 2500 screens in the U.S. alone.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) Feb 13, 2020
Kevin Phillipson (9967 KP) Feb 14, 2020