Search
How to Get Away With Murder - Season 1
8.6
Rate It
TV Season Watch
In the first season of this crime drama produced by Shonda Rhimes' Shondaland, cold-blooded...
Absolute Power (1997)
7.0
Rate It
Movie Watch
Academy Award winner Clint Eastwood directs and stars as a notorious master thief who stumbles upon...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You can’t take it with you.
The big talking point of this Ridley Scott film is not of course the film itself but the fact that the disgraced Kevin Spacey (“Baby Driver“) was ‘airbrushed’ out of the movie, replaced by the legend that is Christopher Plummer. With that background, and the fact that the re-shoot only took 9 days (NINE DAYS!!!!), I must admit to having been a tad scornful when Plummer was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. “Oh” I thought “…it’s Judi Dench’s minimalistic performance in ‘Shakespeare In Love’ all over again”.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
From Dublin to Jailbreak: Thin Lizzy 1969-76
Book
Dublin's Thin Lizzy have become one of the most revered cult acts of all time, studious and...
Lee (2222 KP) rated The House (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Worst movie I've seen in a very, very long time
Usually when I review comedies I start off by complaining about how disappointing they tend to be these days. Sometimes they manage to prove me wrong (Bad Moms), sometimes they’re not quite as bad as I was expecting (Baywatch). The last time I was seriously annoyed about how bad a comedy was it was Office Christmas Party, but even then that managed to raise a laugh or two. The House though, well that goes way beyond that, taking it to a whole other level by having absolutely no laughs in it at all!
Will Ferrell is Scott, Amy Poehler is his wife Kate. When their daughter Alex gets into the university she wanted, they’re over the moon. Especially as the town runs some kind of scholarship program, paying for one lucky students education each year. This years lucky recipient is due to be Alex but when sleazy city councilman Bob decides to cancel the program in favour of building a huge pool for the town, Scott and Kate need to come up with another way of raising the money. Recently divorced neighbour Frank has a big empty house and between them they hit upon the idea of building a casino in his home, somewhere for the locals to come and spend all their money. Things go well for a while, then things get way out of hand. Cue the opportunity for some riotous, hilarious humour…
Only there’s none of that. It’s riotous, but this is just such a lazily written movie that the humour is non-existent. Featuring a date rape ‘gag’ within the first five minutes(?!) it just gets progressively worse from there. Pointless, nonsensical playground style bickering, name calling and random violence feature heavily throughout in a scatter-gun attempt at trying to raise a laugh. All of this ends up coming across as either poorly written, badly improvised, or both. Even the editing is a total disaster – in one scene Amy Poehler has a guy standing right behind her, cut to another camera and he’s gone, cut back and he’s there again, cut back and he’s gone!
The biggest disappointment about this is the complete waste of talent. Admittedly, Will Ferrell is on a downward spiral anyway since his Anchorman days and the brilliant Step Brothers, but you’d still expect more from him than this. One of my favourite TV shows, Parks and Recreation, stars Amy Poehler as the hilarious Leslie Knope, so I’d expect way more from her too. Even her movie roles haven’t been too bad so far. I guess it just proves that if you’ve got a seriously dud script on your hands, there isn’t really much that anyone can do to fix it. This isn’t just a bad comedy, it’s a bad, bad movie.
Will Ferrell is Scott, Amy Poehler is his wife Kate. When their daughter Alex gets into the university she wanted, they’re over the moon. Especially as the town runs some kind of scholarship program, paying for one lucky students education each year. This years lucky recipient is due to be Alex but when sleazy city councilman Bob decides to cancel the program in favour of building a huge pool for the town, Scott and Kate need to come up with another way of raising the money. Recently divorced neighbour Frank has a big empty house and between them they hit upon the idea of building a casino in his home, somewhere for the locals to come and spend all their money. Things go well for a while, then things get way out of hand. Cue the opportunity for some riotous, hilarious humour…
Only there’s none of that. It’s riotous, but this is just such a lazily written movie that the humour is non-existent. Featuring a date rape ‘gag’ within the first five minutes(?!) it just gets progressively worse from there. Pointless, nonsensical playground style bickering, name calling and random violence feature heavily throughout in a scatter-gun attempt at trying to raise a laugh. All of this ends up coming across as either poorly written, badly improvised, or both. Even the editing is a total disaster – in one scene Amy Poehler has a guy standing right behind her, cut to another camera and he’s gone, cut back and he’s there again, cut back and he’s gone!
The biggest disappointment about this is the complete waste of talent. Admittedly, Will Ferrell is on a downward spiral anyway since his Anchorman days and the brilliant Step Brothers, but you’d still expect more from him than this. One of my favourite TV shows, Parks and Recreation, stars Amy Poehler as the hilarious Leslie Knope, so I’d expect way more from her too. Even her movie roles haven’t been too bad so far. I guess it just proves that if you’ve got a seriously dud script on your hands, there isn’t really much that anyone can do to fix it. This isn’t just a bad comedy, it’s a bad, bad movie.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
CR
Cincinnati Reds Legends
Mike Shannon, Christopher Felix, Scott D. Hannig and Donnie Pollard
Book
Few Major League Baseball teams have a history as glorious and as interesting as the Cincinnati...
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Walk Among the Tombstones starts by in 1991 we meet Matt Scudder (Neeson) a nonsense detective who while having his morning Irish coffee ends up going into a shootout. Flash forward to 1999 Matt is now a private investigator and when a former junkie Peter Kristo (Holbrook) invites him to meet his brother Kenny (Stevens) for a job. Kenny’s wife was kidnapped with the ransom paid and murdered; he wants Matt to bring him the names of the people responsible. Matt rejects the offer wisely because it would involving working with a drug trafficker but Kenny won’t take no for an answer.
Kenny tales the story of what happened and how gruesome the murder was, this brings Matt into the case to track down the people responsible. Using all his skills he starts the investigation by questioning the locals. The killers prove to be professionals who cover their tracks when committing their crimes. When it becomes apparent they have been doing this for years Matt finds himself investigating cold cases. Tracking down the leads he does come up with a potential name and a place he could meet them, but nothing could prepare him for the nature of the men.
A Walk Among the Tombstones starts very nicely with the broken protagonist trying to make up for something he could never actually make up for, it is hidden from us but we do see he has personal problems. The whole drug dealers being targeting by serial killers also works nicely, giving us a chance to keep guessing on whether it is actually a large scale revenge type thriller than Matt is stuck in the middle off. It goes downhill slowly because of the pace and then turning it into the simple idea that they are just two killers doing it for fun. It is sad because this had a lot of potential from the start but in the end just fizzles out. (6/10)
Actor Review
Liam Neeson: Matt Scudder a private detective who against his better judgment ends up investigating serial killers who enjoy nothing more than kidnapping and killing their victim even if they get their money. He is a former detective who has been recovering from his alcoholism which cost him his job. Liam does do a good job in the role and goes away from the new action star he has created. (7/10)
matt
Dan Stevens: Kenny Kristo drug trafficker whose wife was killed and hires Matt to find the people responsible for it, it will mean risking his connection to help expose the truth. Dan does a good job as the mobster out for revenge for a crime that is personal rather than work related. (7/10)
kenny
Support Cast: A Walk Among the Tombstones has a supporting cast that includes the two killers who are very much evil in what they do, we have other mobsters who are the victims of those killers and we also have a street wise kid trying to help Mark out. They all help the story flow along very well.
Director Review: Scott Frank – Scott does a solid job directing this to make it an interesting thriller with a very dark side to it. (6/10)
Crime: A Walk Among the Tombstones enters into the crime world without going too far over the top with its double crossing, instead focusing on one angle the whole way through. (7/10)
Mystery: A Walk Among the Tombstones does keep you guessing to what would be the motives of the characters creating a nice mystery about the story. (8/10)
Thriller: A Walk Among the Tombstones starts off pulling you in especially when you hear about the murdered wife but afterwards slight starts to fade away. (7/10)
Settings: A Walk Among the Tombstones creates a world that is similar to 1999 New York. (7/10)
Suggestion: A Walk Among the Tombstones is one to try and the fans of Neeson will be watching this, it might not keep everyone happy because it isn’t as dark as its source material. (Try It)
Best Part: The shock of what Kenny finds in the boot of that car.
Worst Part: Falls away by the end.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Cold in July
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $53 Million
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 54 Minutes
Tagline: People are afraid of all the wrong things.
Overall: A Thriller That Hits Hard Early but Tires Near the End
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/01/26/a-walk-among-the-tombstones-2014/
Kenny tales the story of what happened and how gruesome the murder was, this brings Matt into the case to track down the people responsible. Using all his skills he starts the investigation by questioning the locals. The killers prove to be professionals who cover their tracks when committing their crimes. When it becomes apparent they have been doing this for years Matt finds himself investigating cold cases. Tracking down the leads he does come up with a potential name and a place he could meet them, but nothing could prepare him for the nature of the men.
A Walk Among the Tombstones starts very nicely with the broken protagonist trying to make up for something he could never actually make up for, it is hidden from us but we do see he has personal problems. The whole drug dealers being targeting by serial killers also works nicely, giving us a chance to keep guessing on whether it is actually a large scale revenge type thriller than Matt is stuck in the middle off. It goes downhill slowly because of the pace and then turning it into the simple idea that they are just two killers doing it for fun. It is sad because this had a lot of potential from the start but in the end just fizzles out. (6/10)
Actor Review
Liam Neeson: Matt Scudder a private detective who against his better judgment ends up investigating serial killers who enjoy nothing more than kidnapping and killing their victim even if they get their money. He is a former detective who has been recovering from his alcoholism which cost him his job. Liam does do a good job in the role and goes away from the new action star he has created. (7/10)
matt
Dan Stevens: Kenny Kristo drug trafficker whose wife was killed and hires Matt to find the people responsible for it, it will mean risking his connection to help expose the truth. Dan does a good job as the mobster out for revenge for a crime that is personal rather than work related. (7/10)
kenny
Support Cast: A Walk Among the Tombstones has a supporting cast that includes the two killers who are very much evil in what they do, we have other mobsters who are the victims of those killers and we also have a street wise kid trying to help Mark out. They all help the story flow along very well.
Director Review: Scott Frank – Scott does a solid job directing this to make it an interesting thriller with a very dark side to it. (6/10)
Crime: A Walk Among the Tombstones enters into the crime world without going too far over the top with its double crossing, instead focusing on one angle the whole way through. (7/10)
Mystery: A Walk Among the Tombstones does keep you guessing to what would be the motives of the characters creating a nice mystery about the story. (8/10)
Thriller: A Walk Among the Tombstones starts off pulling you in especially when you hear about the murdered wife but afterwards slight starts to fade away. (7/10)
Settings: A Walk Among the Tombstones creates a world that is similar to 1999 New York. (7/10)
Suggestion: A Walk Among the Tombstones is one to try and the fans of Neeson will be watching this, it might not keep everyone happy because it isn’t as dark as its source material. (Try It)
Best Part: The shock of what Kenny finds in the boot of that car.
Worst Part: Falls away by the end.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Cold in July
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $53 Million
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 54 Minutes
Tagline: People are afraid of all the wrong things.
Overall: A Thriller That Hits Hard Early but Tires Near the End
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/01/26/a-walk-among-the-tombstones-2014/
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated House of M in Books
Nov 30, 2020
*** <i>Read the entire story while listening to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' score to GONE GIRL. Not saying it would be for everyone, but it definitely worked for my re-reading.</i>
I have mentioned this in my graphic novel reviews of late, that I have been doing a fair amount of re-reads since making the transition to digital. It's such a delight to be able to read the comics again without fear of ruining the pages if I am eating or drinking! And best of all? The graphic novels (and books) read take up zero space, helping me to continue to maintain a minimalist lifestyle.
Okay, on to the review..
I originally read the HOUSE OF M about a year or so after it was published in trade paperback. At that time, I recall liking it well enough, thinking that Bendis did a good job. It was not good enough, at that time, to leave a lasting impression on me, unlike other Marvel events before it. With the move to digital, and with a price I could not refuse, I felt it was time to revisit the series and see how it would fare with my not-as-cluttered mental state.
First, let me just <b>"WOW!"</b>. No, seriously! For a re-read, it felt decidely fresh and much more engaging that it was for me first time out. The story was quite good, helping fulfill my Daily Minimum Requuirement of Angst Bendis wrote everyone in character, and he made it was easy to empathize with the characters, as they dealt with effects of the world presented in HOUSE OF M.
One thing that really made HOUSE OF M stand out, besides the story, was the art. Oliver Coipel's pencils were perfecting, offering clear expressions, helping to capture the mood(s) needed throughout! Coipel's was given some solid inkers to finish it: Tim Townsend, Rick Magyar, Scott Hanna, and John Dell. And let us not forget to mention the final icing on the cake: that super awesome coloring from Frank D'Armata. Seriously, a big hand goes out to all of this top notch collaborative effort!
I won't try to tell anyone how to read this, or anything for that matter. However, I will say that for my re-reading, I would stop every so often and reflect, to imagine what it must have been like for Wanda (Scarlet Witch) to have to live going forward after being told your children were just fabrications! And then, even further, to learn what she did at the end of HOUSE OF M! Seriously, regardless of whether you love or hate Bendis, this was heavy stuff to swallow! Sadly, it seems to been retconned by Marvel!
If you are tired of the current events "daisy chaining" that Marvel feels compelled to continue churning out, you could do a whole lot worse than HOUSE OF M. Bendis puts forward some interesting ideas, and seeing them play out is a hell of a good read! It is probably one of his best Marvel contributions, next to his DAREDEVIL! I urge you to give it a shot! You, like me, may need a second reading, but I think you will enjoy it!
Now, I am off to read the post-HOUSE OF M stuff, as well as AVENGERS: DISASSEMBLED, which leads into HOUSE OF M, and which I did not read when HOUSE OF M first came out.
I have mentioned this in my graphic novel reviews of late, that I have been doing a fair amount of re-reads since making the transition to digital. It's such a delight to be able to read the comics again without fear of ruining the pages if I am eating or drinking! And best of all? The graphic novels (and books) read take up zero space, helping me to continue to maintain a minimalist lifestyle.
Okay, on to the review..
I originally read the HOUSE OF M about a year or so after it was published in trade paperback. At that time, I recall liking it well enough, thinking that Bendis did a good job. It was not good enough, at that time, to leave a lasting impression on me, unlike other Marvel events before it. With the move to digital, and with a price I could not refuse, I felt it was time to revisit the series and see how it would fare with my not-as-cluttered mental state.
First, let me just <b>"WOW!"</b>. No, seriously! For a re-read, it felt decidely fresh and much more engaging that it was for me first time out. The story was quite good, helping fulfill my Daily Minimum Requuirement of Angst Bendis wrote everyone in character, and he made it was easy to empathize with the characters, as they dealt with effects of the world presented in HOUSE OF M.
One thing that really made HOUSE OF M stand out, besides the story, was the art. Oliver Coipel's pencils were perfecting, offering clear expressions, helping to capture the mood(s) needed throughout! Coipel's was given some solid inkers to finish it: Tim Townsend, Rick Magyar, Scott Hanna, and John Dell. And let us not forget to mention the final icing on the cake: that super awesome coloring from Frank D'Armata. Seriously, a big hand goes out to all of this top notch collaborative effort!
I won't try to tell anyone how to read this, or anything for that matter. However, I will say that for my re-reading, I would stop every so often and reflect, to imagine what it must have been like for Wanda (Scarlet Witch) to have to live going forward after being told your children were just fabrications! And then, even further, to learn what she did at the end of HOUSE OF M! Seriously, regardless of whether you love or hate Bendis, this was heavy stuff to swallow! Sadly, it seems to been retconned by Marvel!
If you are tired of the current events "daisy chaining" that Marvel feels compelled to continue churning out, you could do a whole lot worse than HOUSE OF M. Bendis puts forward some interesting ideas, and seeing them play out is a hell of a good read! It is probably one of his best Marvel contributions, next to his DAREDEVIL! I urge you to give it a shot! You, like me, may need a second reading, but I think you will enjoy it!
Now, I am off to read the post-HOUSE OF M stuff, as well as AVENGERS: DISASSEMBLED, which leads into HOUSE OF M, and which I did not read when HOUSE OF M first came out.