Search
Search results
▸ Calculator
Utilities and Productivity
App
+ 800+ formulas in Formula Toolkit In-App + OVER 1 MILLION DOWNLOADS WORLDWIDE + Award Winning...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Silver Streak (1976) in Movies
Jun 7, 2020
The start of a wonderful comedic partnership
Most people remember Gene Wilder as the frazzled haired wild man in such Mel Brooks classic films as THE PRODUCERS, BLAZING SADDLES and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Others will recall him as the mad genius that held our attention in WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, but there was a 3rd phase to Wilder's career - his unlikely partnership with Richard Pryor - that started with 1976's SILVER STREAK.
Set aboard the titular passenger train, SILVER STREAK is part Alfred Hitchcock "wrong man" suspense thriller, part comedy and part action flick with strong performances at the center anchoring the action.
Surprisingly, Wilder brings a sincere quality to his "everyman" hero of this tale. His book editor, George Caldwell, just wants a quiet 2 1/2 day trip on the train from Los Angeles to Chicago. You root for George from the start. Wilder's performance is deftly tailored to this movie, keeping a lid on his more frenetic energy that helps keep his character grounded. He pairs nicely with Jill Clayburgh (remember her from the '70's?) as a women he meets (and falls in love with) along the way. Clayburgh burst into the spotlight with this performance - and the 2 have tremendous chemistry together.
They are joined by a bevy of wonderful character actors - Ray Walston, Richard "Jaws" Kiel, Ned Beatty, Clifton James, Valerie Curtin, Fred Willard and the great Scatman Crothers. All bring life and energy to this film. Patrick McGoohan is perfectly cast as the villain of the piece. His "buttoned-up" bad guy is the perfect balance to the Wilder's character.
But, of course, the person who steals this film is the great Richard Pryor as Grover T. Muldoon, a petty thief, con-man and "street-wise" hood who aids George in defeating the bad guys. Pryor doesn't show up in this movie until about 1/2 way through, but when he does, the energy (and pace) of this film picks up considerably and the roller coaster ride begins. The comedic partnership between Wilder and Pryor is magnificent, they play off each other very well and they will end up pairing together in 3 other films after this.
Director Arthur Hiller (THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY) does a strong, professional job of keeping the movie moving, keeping events grounded until a thrilling conclusion that is satisfying, indeed.
A fun action-thriller that is perfect summer fodder.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set aboard the titular passenger train, SILVER STREAK is part Alfred Hitchcock "wrong man" suspense thriller, part comedy and part action flick with strong performances at the center anchoring the action.
Surprisingly, Wilder brings a sincere quality to his "everyman" hero of this tale. His book editor, George Caldwell, just wants a quiet 2 1/2 day trip on the train from Los Angeles to Chicago. You root for George from the start. Wilder's performance is deftly tailored to this movie, keeping a lid on his more frenetic energy that helps keep his character grounded. He pairs nicely with Jill Clayburgh (remember her from the '70's?) as a women he meets (and falls in love with) along the way. Clayburgh burst into the spotlight with this performance - and the 2 have tremendous chemistry together.
They are joined by a bevy of wonderful character actors - Ray Walston, Richard "Jaws" Kiel, Ned Beatty, Clifton James, Valerie Curtin, Fred Willard and the great Scatman Crothers. All bring life and energy to this film. Patrick McGoohan is perfectly cast as the villain of the piece. His "buttoned-up" bad guy is the perfect balance to the Wilder's character.
But, of course, the person who steals this film is the great Richard Pryor as Grover T. Muldoon, a petty thief, con-man and "street-wise" hood who aids George in defeating the bad guys. Pryor doesn't show up in this movie until about 1/2 way through, but when he does, the energy (and pace) of this film picks up considerably and the roller coaster ride begins. The comedic partnership between Wilder and Pryor is magnificent, they play off each other very well and they will end up pairing together in 3 other films after this.
Director Arthur Hiller (THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY) does a strong, professional job of keeping the movie moving, keeping events grounded until a thrilling conclusion that is satisfying, indeed.
A fun action-thriller that is perfect summer fodder.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rain Man (1988) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
Hoffman and Cruise pair well together
Some films grow over time, some diminish and others are unfairly maligned. I feel that such is the case with 1988's RAINMAN, the film that won 4 Oscars including Best Director, Actor and Picture. I, too, thought that this film might be "cringe-worthy" in the harsh light of 2020, so it was with some trepidation that we fired it up as my wife's choice for "Secret Cinema" in our house.
I need not have worried for this film, it's themes and performances hold up very, very well more than 30 years later.
Starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, RAINMAN tells the story of selfish, self-absorbed, high flying Charlie Babbitt who is shocked to discover that he did not inherit the estate of his estranged father - it went to his brother, Raymond (who Charlie knew nothing about). Finding out that Raymond is autistic, Charlie kidnaps Raymond, figuring he could con his way to his Father's fortune.
The first, most surprising, part of this film is the wonderful chemistry between Cruise and Hoffman. They play off each other very well and seem to have a natural rapport. Hoffman, of course, won the Oscar for Best Actor that year - and it is well deserved, even though some claim that his characterization of Raymond is a "gimmick". I think that is not giving the character - and the performance - it's due, for I found (on this rewatch) that Hoffman's portrayal of Raymond is layered, sensitive and sincere. He builds a character that you want to root for.
The surprise of this film is Cruise's performance as Charlie Babbitt. At the beginning he is playing the "yuppie" jerk quite well - focused only on himself - and his possessions and the money he can make, Charlie is not very likable and is, if I must confess, a bit one-dimensional to start. But something happens along the cross-country road trip that Charlie takes Raymond on - his character (and Cruise's performance) grows and shapes into a fully three-dimensional person that has good traits and bad traits. It is one of Cruise's finest performances - and it is a shame that it was not rewarded with an Oscar nomination.
Director Barry Levinson (Director of the under-rated gem DINER) does a nice job keeping the pace - and the mood - of the film moving forward. This could easily have devolved into an over-sentimental and "schmaltzy" feel good flick, Levinson finds the right balance to make this a "feel good" film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I need not have worried for this film, it's themes and performances hold up very, very well more than 30 years later.
Starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, RAINMAN tells the story of selfish, self-absorbed, high flying Charlie Babbitt who is shocked to discover that he did not inherit the estate of his estranged father - it went to his brother, Raymond (who Charlie knew nothing about). Finding out that Raymond is autistic, Charlie kidnaps Raymond, figuring he could con his way to his Father's fortune.
The first, most surprising, part of this film is the wonderful chemistry between Cruise and Hoffman. They play off each other very well and seem to have a natural rapport. Hoffman, of course, won the Oscar for Best Actor that year - and it is well deserved, even though some claim that his characterization of Raymond is a "gimmick". I think that is not giving the character - and the performance - it's due, for I found (on this rewatch) that Hoffman's portrayal of Raymond is layered, sensitive and sincere. He builds a character that you want to root for.
The surprise of this film is Cruise's performance as Charlie Babbitt. At the beginning he is playing the "yuppie" jerk quite well - focused only on himself - and his possessions and the money he can make, Charlie is not very likable and is, if I must confess, a bit one-dimensional to start. But something happens along the cross-country road trip that Charlie takes Raymond on - his character (and Cruise's performance) grows and shapes into a fully three-dimensional person that has good traits and bad traits. It is one of Cruise's finest performances - and it is a shame that it was not rewarded with an Oscar nomination.
Director Barry Levinson (Director of the under-rated gem DINER) does a nice job keeping the pace - and the mood - of the film moving forward. This could easily have devolved into an over-sentimental and "schmaltzy" feel good flick, Levinson finds the right balance to make this a "feel good" film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Benedick Lewis (3001 KP) rated Nothing Lasts Forever (Die Hard, #1) in Books
Sep 30, 2020
Good to see origins to a great film (1 more)
Quick read - less than 250 pages
Only one perspective- feels like it needs more character viewpoints (1 more)
Prose can be difficult to follow
Surprising: film better than book
Nothing Lasts Forever was the framework for the great film Die Hard. Being a massive fan of the film as well as putting it under academic scrutiny, it was interesting to see the similarities and differences between book and film.
However, having seen Die Hard multiple times, it was sometimes difficult to picture the protagonist, Joe Leland, doing the John McClane things. Further more, the book only depicts Leland’s point of view and the story could have benefited from being told from multiple perspectives: Leland’s, the terrorists and the hostages. Unfortunately, the terrorists’ motive is summed up in one page and it doesn’t wholly satisfy, especially given in the film, the plot is more devious and fiendishly clever giving cinema one of its all time greatest villains.
To talk more about the comparisons is doing literature an injustice. Time and again, it needs to be reminded that they are two different mediums with different requirements. That said, there is definitely one big major difference that really distinguishes the two products of this idea and the only thing that can be said is that it is towards the end. Those that know the film and decide to read this book will know when you get to that part but it is one that really sets it apart.
Frank Sinartra played Leland in the prequel to this book, The Detective. It’s not essential that you read that book first to understand this one. Author Roderick Thorp plays catch up in the opening chapters. He does however spoil that story so if you are looking to read that, best put this to one side.
Thorp’s style is a little all over the place, especially regarding the set pieces and it can be difficult to imagine the scenes he is trying to depict. Leland is not the most likeable of heroes either and it can be difficult to root for him but it is a short story and can be done in one sitting so it’ll be over before you have the time to really dislike him.
Read this if you haven’t seen Die Hard. Read this but make sure you watch Die Hard rather adjacent to that. It would be surprising if you found the book better. In this case, the film is superior. A rare case indeed.
However, having seen Die Hard multiple times, it was sometimes difficult to picture the protagonist, Joe Leland, doing the John McClane things. Further more, the book only depicts Leland’s point of view and the story could have benefited from being told from multiple perspectives: Leland’s, the terrorists and the hostages. Unfortunately, the terrorists’ motive is summed up in one page and it doesn’t wholly satisfy, especially given in the film, the plot is more devious and fiendishly clever giving cinema one of its all time greatest villains.
To talk more about the comparisons is doing literature an injustice. Time and again, it needs to be reminded that they are two different mediums with different requirements. That said, there is definitely one big major difference that really distinguishes the two products of this idea and the only thing that can be said is that it is towards the end. Those that know the film and decide to read this book will know when you get to that part but it is one that really sets it apart.
Frank Sinartra played Leland in the prequel to this book, The Detective. It’s not essential that you read that book first to understand this one. Author Roderick Thorp plays catch up in the opening chapters. He does however spoil that story so if you are looking to read that, best put this to one side.
Thorp’s style is a little all over the place, especially regarding the set pieces and it can be difficult to imagine the scenes he is trying to depict. Leland is not the most likeable of heroes either and it can be difficult to root for him but it is a short story and can be done in one sitting so it’ll be over before you have the time to really dislike him.
Read this if you haven’t seen Die Hard. Read this but make sure you watch Die Hard rather adjacent to that. It would be surprising if you found the book better. In this case, the film is superior. A rare case indeed.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Big Summer in Books
May 7, 2020
Well this was an unexpected yet enjoyable read. It's far less serious than Weiner's previous book, the expansive and beautiful Mrs. Everything, but I think it's exactly the read we need for these times. I finished feeling happy and grateful for what I had in my life. Big Summer was a wonderful distraction from real life.
This is a fun story featuring our engaging plus-size heroine, Daphne, who is still struggling to find herself as an adult. Many of her scars and insecurities come from her so-called friendship with Drue, who was more of a user than a friend. After Drue hurt Daphne one time too many, she hasn't seen her in six years. But she's still powerless to say no to her, especially when she's begging for her to attend her high society wedding.
"You are susceptible to Drue Cavanaugh. She's your Kryptonite."
I found Daphne to be sweet albeit in need of a backbone at times. Her journey to self-actualization is certainly engaging. Big Summer takes a huge turn about halfway through, giving me a big surprise, but I loved it, honestly. I'm glad I hadn't read about the twist--a lot of reviews give it away, but I won't. Let's just say that Drue and her minions can be quite twisted at times, and there's a lot to unravel and unwrap here in terms of motivations and backstory. Big Summer starts with a little snippet set in the early 1990s, setting us up for the story ahead. We also learn about Daphne and Drue's past and all about their friendship.
This is such a sweet, sometimes silly (oh how I love Daphne's parents), and real read. Goodness, the pieces about Daphne's weight can be so heartbreaking. There's a section where she remembers her grandmother caring for her for a summer and basically giving her her weight insecurities, as she put Daphne on her first diet, making her aware of being heavier. Oh man. Weiner is an excellent writer, and she brings Daphne to life here, making her such a true person, whom we want to root for, hug, and love.
And she gives us a book about family, love, and reminds us to be grateful for what we have. The grass isn't always greener on the other side, per se. Always important, but even so more right now. I loved this one, with its escapist nature and twisty yet heartfelt storyline. 4+ stars.
This is a fun story featuring our engaging plus-size heroine, Daphne, who is still struggling to find herself as an adult. Many of her scars and insecurities come from her so-called friendship with Drue, who was more of a user than a friend. After Drue hurt Daphne one time too many, she hasn't seen her in six years. But she's still powerless to say no to her, especially when she's begging for her to attend her high society wedding.
"You are susceptible to Drue Cavanaugh. She's your Kryptonite."
I found Daphne to be sweet albeit in need of a backbone at times. Her journey to self-actualization is certainly engaging. Big Summer takes a huge turn about halfway through, giving me a big surprise, but I loved it, honestly. I'm glad I hadn't read about the twist--a lot of reviews give it away, but I won't. Let's just say that Drue and her minions can be quite twisted at times, and there's a lot to unravel and unwrap here in terms of motivations and backstory. Big Summer starts with a little snippet set in the early 1990s, setting us up for the story ahead. We also learn about Daphne and Drue's past and all about their friendship.
This is such a sweet, sometimes silly (oh how I love Daphne's parents), and real read. Goodness, the pieces about Daphne's weight can be so heartbreaking. There's a section where she remembers her grandmother caring for her for a summer and basically giving her her weight insecurities, as she put Daphne on her first diet, making her aware of being heavier. Oh man. Weiner is an excellent writer, and she brings Daphne to life here, making her such a true person, whom we want to root for, hug, and love.
And she gives us a book about family, love, and reminds us to be grateful for what we have. The grass isn't always greener on the other side, per se. Always important, but even so more right now. I loved this one, with its escapist nature and twisty yet heartfelt storyline. 4+ stars.
West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story?
Book
West Indian immigrants to the United States fare better than native-born African Americans on a wide...
The Sum Of Us
Book
NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER - One of today's most insightful and influential thinkers offers a...
Baseball Highlights: 2045
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
American baseball was on its last legs as a spectator sport. Football had become the predominant...
Baseball Cyborgs Robots Deck Builder
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Mad Max (1979) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Decent
Guilty confession: Typically when I watch a "classic" or a film I've really been looking forward to, I go into it expecting to like it. In other words, the film is already ahead of the curve when it comes to my grading scale. It has to do a lot to let me down. I hate to say it, but Mad Max? It let me down. Not in the sense that it was bad, but rather in the sense that I was hoping for more.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
Not as funny as I hoped, but engaging enough
Holland has been obsessed with a handsome subway busker for quite some time. One evening, he winds up rescuing her after she falls on the subway tracks, kicking off a whirlwind of events. Holland helps Calvin get an audition with her uncle Robert, a Broadway musical director. Calvin is infinitely talented, but, it turns out, also in the United States illegally. So Holland does something she never does: makes an impulsive decision. She'll offer to marry Calvin so he can stay in the country, live out his dream, and help her uncle's hit show. Calvin quickly becomes a Broadway star. As for Calvin and Holland--they quickly realize they may be more than roommates. But what will it take for them to admit it? And for each to move past their own issues?
This was my first Christina Lauren book, which I picked up after hearing lots of Goodreads friends praise the dynamic duo. I am always a sucker for a good, fun romance. I was surprised to find the book start with Holland already lusting after Calvin, whom she called "Jack," as she watched him from afar at the subway. The action gets underway quickly, and it did seem like they each agreed to their extreme plan (marriage to someone they'd never met!) rather rapidly and easily. Even Holland's protective uncles came on board very quickly.
Some pros--a somewhat diverse cast, including Holland's adorable gay uncles, who were often couple goals. I enjoyed getting some insight into a Broadway musical, as well as the immigration process, although I bet both of those were sugarcoated a bit. Still, I found Holland a bit of a doormat; she frustrated me with her lack of ability to stand up for herself. While her inability to find herself is the premise of the book, a strong romance only works for me if I'm invested in the characters, and I just didn't always feel it with Holland and Calvin. Holland was too wishy washy and I never felt like I got to know Calvin enough. It was frustrating, because I could see moments of humor in the book, but never enough to truly win me over. I needed more to fully root for the couple. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the book: it's cute and fun at times, and an easy read.
Overall, I had a tough time warming up to the main characters, and I didn't always find the funny situations that humorous. The premise was a little crazy, but was engaging enough. I'll be curious to see how I feel about my next Christina Lauren read.
This was my first Christina Lauren book, which I picked up after hearing lots of Goodreads friends praise the dynamic duo. I am always a sucker for a good, fun romance. I was surprised to find the book start with Holland already lusting after Calvin, whom she called "Jack," as she watched him from afar at the subway. The action gets underway quickly, and it did seem like they each agreed to their extreme plan (marriage to someone they'd never met!) rather rapidly and easily. Even Holland's protective uncles came on board very quickly.
Some pros--a somewhat diverse cast, including Holland's adorable gay uncles, who were often couple goals. I enjoyed getting some insight into a Broadway musical, as well as the immigration process, although I bet both of those were sugarcoated a bit. Still, I found Holland a bit of a doormat; she frustrated me with her lack of ability to stand up for herself. While her inability to find herself is the premise of the book, a strong romance only works for me if I'm invested in the characters, and I just didn't always feel it with Holland and Calvin. Holland was too wishy washy and I never felt like I got to know Calvin enough. It was frustrating, because I could see moments of humor in the book, but never enough to truly win me over. I needed more to fully root for the couple. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the book: it's cute and fun at times, and an easy read.
Overall, I had a tough time warming up to the main characters, and I didn't always find the funny situations that humorous. The premise was a little crazy, but was engaging enough. I'll be curious to see how I feel about my next Christina Lauren read.