Search
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Pilgrims Don't Wear Pink (Pilgrims, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I liked Pilgrims Don't Wear Pink. For the most part, it was a good read. There was only one thing that I didn't particularly like, but it was a pretty large part.
The good:
-The plot was fun. I enjoyed the storyline, the twists and turns, and the ending. Some of it I saw coming, some of it I didn't—but even when I expected it, I enjoyed seeing it work out.
-The characters: Dev (Libby's extremely gay friend) was fabulous in every sense of the word. If he were real, he'd be my buddy, even though he'd be constantly criticizing my shoes. Garrett, the reporter, is so nerd-tastic that I literally geeked out when he was introduced. Cam's romantic side was the hero every girl dreams about.
-The relationship progression: I knew from the get-go that Cam was going to be the greasy sleazy character that charms the girls but is really a jerk, and that Garrett was going to be the awesome-sauce hero. But when Libby first meets the characters, the reader perceives them just like she does: that Cam was a Shakespeare-quoting flower-throwing romantic, and Garrett was a nerd (again, I liked him more from the beginning anyway). The transition happened so slowly and flawlessly that I didn't see it happen, it just did.
-I've lead camps before. They're so much fun. Strohm nailed it! I loved the little girls! Ah for those scenes I totally wanted to be Libby.
-The writing was totally great. It felt like a teen's interior monologue, it was witty, fun, clear, and easy to read. It was perfect for the genre.
-The ending was pretty darn perfect. I liked what Libby learned, and how she changed. If the character hasn't changed from the beginning of the book to the end, nothing happened! The change was good. All in all the whole book was pretty cute.
The only not-so-good thing:
-I couldn't figure Libby out. Why doesn't she watch Battlestar Galactica or play Assassin's Creed? (That would totally be her thing. I bet after this story ends she turns into a total geek.) Libby was somewhat contradictory. She seemed to have a pretty clear view of right and wrong, and she was smart, but she didn't pick up on things that were blatantly obvious (trying to keep it spoiler-free here).
When there is only one not-so-good thing in the whole book, usually I'll rate it pretty high. But when the only not-so-good thing in the whole book is the main character? The whole way through reading this I kept thinking "Libby, what the heck are you thinking?" and she kind of annoyed me. I liked her, but again, her character seemed conflicting.
All in all, I enjoyed Pilgrims Don't Wear Pink, and would still recommend it for a fun quick light read.
Content/Recommendation: Little language, few references to sex. Ages 14+
The good:
-The plot was fun. I enjoyed the storyline, the twists and turns, and the ending. Some of it I saw coming, some of it I didn't—but even when I expected it, I enjoyed seeing it work out.
-The characters: Dev (Libby's extremely gay friend) was fabulous in every sense of the word. If he were real, he'd be my buddy, even though he'd be constantly criticizing my shoes. Garrett, the reporter, is so nerd-tastic that I literally geeked out when he was introduced. Cam's romantic side was the hero every girl dreams about.
-The relationship progression: I knew from the get-go that Cam was going to be the greasy sleazy character that charms the girls but is really a jerk, and that Garrett was going to be the awesome-sauce hero. But when Libby first meets the characters, the reader perceives them just like she does: that Cam was a Shakespeare-quoting flower-throwing romantic, and Garrett was a nerd (again, I liked him more from the beginning anyway). The transition happened so slowly and flawlessly that I didn't see it happen, it just did.
-I've lead camps before. They're so much fun. Strohm nailed it! I loved the little girls! Ah for those scenes I totally wanted to be Libby.
-The writing was totally great. It felt like a teen's interior monologue, it was witty, fun, clear, and easy to read. It was perfect for the genre.
-The ending was pretty darn perfect. I liked what Libby learned, and how she changed. If the character hasn't changed from the beginning of the book to the end, nothing happened! The change was good. All in all the whole book was pretty cute.
The only not-so-good thing:
-I couldn't figure Libby out. Why doesn't she watch Battlestar Galactica or play Assassin's Creed? (That would totally be her thing. I bet after this story ends she turns into a total geek.) Libby was somewhat contradictory. She seemed to have a pretty clear view of right and wrong, and she was smart, but she didn't pick up on things that were blatantly obvious (trying to keep it spoiler-free here).
When there is only one not-so-good thing in the whole book, usually I'll rate it pretty high. But when the only not-so-good thing in the whole book is the main character? The whole way through reading this I kept thinking "Libby, what the heck are you thinking?" and she kind of annoyed me. I liked her, but again, her character seemed conflicting.
All in all, I enjoyed Pilgrims Don't Wear Pink, and would still recommend it for a fun quick light read.
Content/Recommendation: Little language, few references to sex. Ages 14+
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated My Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
William Shakespeare once wrote that “Hell Hath No Fury Like A Woman Scorned”. Never was a phrase more prophetic than in the case of the new Ivan Reitman comedy My “Super-Ex Girlfriend” which is a clever twist on the obsessive lover genre made popular by films such as “Fatal Attraction”.
The film stars Luke Wilson as Matt Saunders, an easy going guy who works with a architecture firm and who is on the rebound after becoming single from what his friends refer to as a crazy woman.
Since Matt has been single for six months, he at the urging of his friend Vaughn (Rain Wilson), approaches a woman on the subway, who is at first very icy towards him. Fate steps in and soon the two decide to setup a date.
Soon after Matt meets up with his new acquaintance Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman) and the two begin to see each other despite the concern Matt has that something is different about Jenny.
In time, Jenny reveals to Matt that she is in fact the super heroine G-Girl which is a huge ego stroke to Matt and convinces him that is why he is getting an odd vibe from Jenny due to the train of hiding her real identity from the world.
Since Matt is the only person Jenny has ever told about her secret, she believes that this is a huge step in their relationship which will help them become closer and fall deeply in love.
That does not happen as Jenny soon becomes very Jealous of Matt and his friendship with perky co-worker Hannah (Anna Faris). Soon things begin to deteriorate for Matt as Jenny is becoming very obsessive, needy and psychotic, which forces Matt at the urging of Vaughn to call things off with Jenny.
This decision by Matt turns out to be a big mistake as the emotionally unbalanced Jenny decides to use her super abilities to make like hell for Matt who before he knows what hit him, has every aspect of his life and career under assault from the vindictive G-Girl.
As if this was not enough trouble for Matt, he realizes that he is falling for Hannah, all of which only adds to the fury and wrath brought on By G-Girl.
Further complications arise when Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard) enters the scene as the arch-nemesis for G-Girl. The two become wary allies and the comedic aftermath that follows is packed with light hearted fun.
The film is thin on plot and character development by the leads work well with one another as does Wanda Sykes as an over zealous office manager. While some may dismiss the inane and lightweight nature of the film, others may see this as charming, which in the end is how I found this film, lightweight, but a fun diversion.
The film stars Luke Wilson as Matt Saunders, an easy going guy who works with a architecture firm and who is on the rebound after becoming single from what his friends refer to as a crazy woman.
Since Matt has been single for six months, he at the urging of his friend Vaughn (Rain Wilson), approaches a woman on the subway, who is at first very icy towards him. Fate steps in and soon the two decide to setup a date.
Soon after Matt meets up with his new acquaintance Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman) and the two begin to see each other despite the concern Matt has that something is different about Jenny.
In time, Jenny reveals to Matt that she is in fact the super heroine G-Girl which is a huge ego stroke to Matt and convinces him that is why he is getting an odd vibe from Jenny due to the train of hiding her real identity from the world.
Since Matt is the only person Jenny has ever told about her secret, she believes that this is a huge step in their relationship which will help them become closer and fall deeply in love.
That does not happen as Jenny soon becomes very Jealous of Matt and his friendship with perky co-worker Hannah (Anna Faris). Soon things begin to deteriorate for Matt as Jenny is becoming very obsessive, needy and psychotic, which forces Matt at the urging of Vaughn to call things off with Jenny.
This decision by Matt turns out to be a big mistake as the emotionally unbalanced Jenny decides to use her super abilities to make like hell for Matt who before he knows what hit him, has every aspect of his life and career under assault from the vindictive G-Girl.
As if this was not enough trouble for Matt, he realizes that he is falling for Hannah, all of which only adds to the fury and wrath brought on By G-Girl.
Further complications arise when Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard) enters the scene as the arch-nemesis for G-Girl. The two become wary allies and the comedic aftermath that follows is packed with light hearted fun.
The film is thin on plot and character development by the leads work well with one another as does Wanda Sykes as an over zealous office manager. While some may dismiss the inane and lightweight nature of the film, others may see this as charming, which in the end is how I found this film, lightweight, but a fun diversion.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Three Hours in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Book-Review-Banner-32.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>Three hours is 180 minutes or 10,800 seconds.
It is a morning’s lessons, a dress rehearsal of Macbeth, a snowy trek through the woods.
It’s an eternity waiting for news. Or a countdown to something terrible.
It is 180 minutes to discover who you will die for and what men will kill for.</i></b>
I am glad I got the chance to be part of the blog tour for Three Hours by Rosamund Lupton. I was reading this book while I was on a plane, travelling to Macedonia, and it was a great adventure all the way through. In all honesty, I enjoyed it a lot, but it didn’t make my favourites list.
A school is under a siege and the headmaster has been shot. The story is being told from the point of view of everyone involved – the students, the teachers, the worried parents, the investigators, even the bad guys… Different people are hiding in different places in the school, all hoping this is just a dream.
During the book, we follow a few story lines:
*Hannah, the teenage girl who is in love for the first time, trying to help the wounded headmaster.
*Rafi and his younger brother Basi, Syrian refugees, still suffering from PTSD.
*The parents that are gathered together, desperate for news that their children are safe.
*The police psychologist and investigators, who are trying to identify the gunmen.
*The students hiding in the school theatre, who rely on a Shakespeare play to calm themselves.
As the chapters go through, the time passes and we get a better glimpse of the whole picture, and the story behind the whole attack of the school. It is very nicely written and amazingly put together.
The ending was unpredictable.
I loved the ending. Even though I had a lot of guesses, and I desperately tried to convince myself that the person responsible couldn’t possibly be the guilty one, the book proved me wrong in the most unpredictable way possible. The book’s ending is the ending you have been waiting for in a thriller for a very long time, and I was quite pleased for a few days after reading it.
Throughout the book, you will get hundreds of small clues that you won’t even notice, and in the end it will all make sense. I may have to read this book again, just to enjoy all those little hidden clues throughout the way and cherish them for the amazing clues they were. Also, to simply mock my inability to spot them as well.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Book-Review-Banner-32.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>Three hours is 180 minutes or 10,800 seconds.
It is a morning’s lessons, a dress rehearsal of Macbeth, a snowy trek through the woods.
It’s an eternity waiting for news. Or a countdown to something terrible.
It is 180 minutes to discover who you will die for and what men will kill for.</i></b>
I am glad I got the chance to be part of the blog tour for Three Hours by Rosamund Lupton. I was reading this book while I was on a plane, travelling to Macedonia, and it was a great adventure all the way through. In all honesty, I enjoyed it a lot, but it didn’t make my favourites list.
A school is under a siege and the headmaster has been shot. The story is being told from the point of view of everyone involved – the students, the teachers, the worried parents, the investigators, even the bad guys… Different people are hiding in different places in the school, all hoping this is just a dream.
During the book, we follow a few story lines:
*Hannah, the teenage girl who is in love for the first time, trying to help the wounded headmaster.
*Rafi and his younger brother Basi, Syrian refugees, still suffering from PTSD.
*The parents that are gathered together, desperate for news that their children are safe.
*The police psychologist and investigators, who are trying to identify the gunmen.
*The students hiding in the school theatre, who rely on a Shakespeare play to calm themselves.
As the chapters go through, the time passes and we get a better glimpse of the whole picture, and the story behind the whole attack of the school. It is very nicely written and amazingly put together.
The ending was unpredictable.
I loved the ending. Even though I had a lot of guesses, and I desperately tried to convince myself that the person responsible couldn’t possibly be the guilty one, the book proved me wrong in the most unpredictable way possible. The book’s ending is the ending you have been waiting for in a thriller for a very long time, and I was quite pleased for a few days after reading it.
Throughout the book, you will get hundreds of small clues that you won’t even notice, and in the end it will all make sense. I may have to read this book again, just to enjoy all those little hidden clues throughout the way and cherish them for the amazing clues they were. Also, to simply mock my inability to spot them as well.
The Whispering Room: A Jane Hawk Novel
7.0
Rate It
Book
Jane Hawk--fiction's most relentless, resourceful, stunning new heroine--continues her battle...
thriller
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Hurricane Heist (2018) in Movies
Mar 10, 2018
Doesn't Go Far Enough
There are times when all I want to do is to sit in a darkened movie theater, turn off my brain, and let a movie with a silly, over-the-top premise wash all over me. THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS films are an example of an "A" in this category. Last year's GEOSTORM was a "B" (it was so over-the-top that it was fun, especially when the meteorologist declared - as if he was reciting Shakespeare - "Oh my God, it's a GEOSTORM!"). Unfortunately, a "C" example of this is THE HURRICANE HEIST.
Directed by Rob Cohen - who brought us the original FAST AND FURIOUS film lo' those many years ago - THE HURRICANE HEIST tells the tale of a HEIST set during a...anyone?...HURRICANE. That's pretty much all you need to know of the plot. The rest is action, escapes, weather gone bad, bad guys being bad guys and good guys being good guys.
The good guys are Toby Kebbel (so good as the motion capture bad-guy ape in DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES), perennial "B"-movie actress Maggie Grace (TAKEN, LOST and the immortal HOT GIRL, FAST CAR, EATING A BANANA) and Ryan Kwanten (I guess he was in TRUE BLOOD). What do these good guys have in common? They are not hard to look at on the screen. The two men also have really bad Southern accents.
The bad guys are led by Ralph Ineson ( a perennial "that guy" in such films as STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY and KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE) and a host of "red shirts". The problem is that Ineson plays his bad guy role as a "that guy" and the "red shirts" have no personality at all. One guy tries to be the "loose cannon" but he doesn't go far enough, nor does Ineson or ANY of the bad guys.
Oh...did I mention Ben Cross (Sarek in the new STAR TREK films)? Cross leaped off the screen in the Oscar winning film CHARIOTS OF FIRE way back in 1981 and was going to be "the next big thing". How has that worked out for him? I'm sure he's making a nice living, but...
But...you don't come to this kind of films for the acting. You come to it for the insane premise, the over-the-top acting, the out-of-this-world stunts and special effects. Unfortunately, THE HURRICANE HEIST plays each one of these "safely". The premise is insane, just not insane enough. The acting is melodramatic - just not over-the-top. The script doesn't really have any "oh-my-gosh, did he just say that" lines and the action, stunts and special effects are pretty good, (maybe even good), but not great.
A pretty mediocre time at the movies. It did serve it's purpose, I turned my brain off for two hours. I just wish it didn't power down as well.
Letter Grade: C (thanks for trying)
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Rob Cohen - who brought us the original FAST AND FURIOUS film lo' those many years ago - THE HURRICANE HEIST tells the tale of a HEIST set during a...anyone?...HURRICANE. That's pretty much all you need to know of the plot. The rest is action, escapes, weather gone bad, bad guys being bad guys and good guys being good guys.
The good guys are Toby Kebbel (so good as the motion capture bad-guy ape in DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES), perennial "B"-movie actress Maggie Grace (TAKEN, LOST and the immortal HOT GIRL, FAST CAR, EATING A BANANA) and Ryan Kwanten (I guess he was in TRUE BLOOD). What do these good guys have in common? They are not hard to look at on the screen. The two men also have really bad Southern accents.
The bad guys are led by Ralph Ineson ( a perennial "that guy" in such films as STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY and KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE) and a host of "red shirts". The problem is that Ineson plays his bad guy role as a "that guy" and the "red shirts" have no personality at all. One guy tries to be the "loose cannon" but he doesn't go far enough, nor does Ineson or ANY of the bad guys.
Oh...did I mention Ben Cross (Sarek in the new STAR TREK films)? Cross leaped off the screen in the Oscar winning film CHARIOTS OF FIRE way back in 1981 and was going to be "the next big thing". How has that worked out for him? I'm sure he's making a nice living, but...
But...you don't come to this kind of films for the acting. You come to it for the insane premise, the over-the-top acting, the out-of-this-world stunts and special effects. Unfortunately, THE HURRICANE HEIST plays each one of these "safely". The premise is insane, just not insane enough. The acting is melodramatic - just not over-the-top. The script doesn't really have any "oh-my-gosh, did he just say that" lines and the action, stunts and special effects are pretty good, (maybe even good), but not great.
A pretty mediocre time at the movies. It did serve it's purpose, I turned my brain off for two hours. I just wish it didn't power down as well.
Letter Grade: C (thanks for trying)
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Free Audiobooks HQ - 10,500+ Free Audio Books
Book and Entertainment
App
***** Over 1,390 5-star ratings Get over 10,500 free audiobooks, 77,500 old time radio dramas, and...
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Not since the film The War of the Roses has the silver screen portrayed marital discord in such as humorous and violent fashion as it does in Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
The film stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as the title characters who are approaching their sixth year of marriage, though Mr. Smith seems to be convinced it has only been five.
Tedium has set into their suburban lives, and the couple has entered counseling in an effort to help their lack of communication. The story of how they met and various aspects of their lives with one another paints the picture of how much the flame has dulled after such an explosive start for the couple.
As routine has their home lives have become, one thing that has not changed is their work. Unknown to each other, the Smiths are actually assassins for competing firms. Both Smiths are convinced that their spouse works in other fields and manage to complete most of their missions during the day or night under the guise of work for the cover careers.
Things change when both agents are assigned by their firms to a mission where they end up encountering each other from a distance. Unsure of whom the person they spotted is, they are ordered to eliminate the person in order to protect their cover.
This begins a rapid series of events that, as anyone who has seen the trailer will realize, the Smiths will figure out that the person they have been seeking is their very own spouse. While this destination is inevitable to the plot is not a surprise, the trip leading up to it, and the whirlwind of events that follows this discovery, is what really makes this film such an enjoyable ride.
Naturally when the two uncover their spouse’s true identity, the instincts of their professions as well as their pent up frustrations come out in an orgy of passion and violence that leaves a trail of devastation. The various encounters between the Smiths not only escalate on the violence scale, but due to issue such as pride, reputations, and betrayal, the objectivity and impersonal nature of their work are abandoned.
I think Shakespeare put it best when he said that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, as the scenes of Jane Smith unloading her pent up fury are almost as hysterical as the segments where John Smith takes his turn at the plate.
A prime example of the films ability to mix action and comedy to perfection is the classic dance scene where the two attempt to disarm one another in an effort to get the upper hand. Pitt and Jolie dance and exchanges barbs, as they keep the beat and discard the weapons they find, as they plot to gain the upper hand.
The film did lose a bit of its amazing momentum about a third of the way in, before regrouping and bringing the film to an action packed and very satisfying conclusion. The supporting work of Vince Vaughn is very funny, but sadly his presence is limited. The films works very well because the chemistry between the two leads is very strong, as are the action and humor sequences. Without a doubt one of the best movies of the summer and one not to be missed
The film stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as the title characters who are approaching their sixth year of marriage, though Mr. Smith seems to be convinced it has only been five.
Tedium has set into their suburban lives, and the couple has entered counseling in an effort to help their lack of communication. The story of how they met and various aspects of their lives with one another paints the picture of how much the flame has dulled after such an explosive start for the couple.
As routine has their home lives have become, one thing that has not changed is their work. Unknown to each other, the Smiths are actually assassins for competing firms. Both Smiths are convinced that their spouse works in other fields and manage to complete most of their missions during the day or night under the guise of work for the cover careers.
Things change when both agents are assigned by their firms to a mission where they end up encountering each other from a distance. Unsure of whom the person they spotted is, they are ordered to eliminate the person in order to protect their cover.
This begins a rapid series of events that, as anyone who has seen the trailer will realize, the Smiths will figure out that the person they have been seeking is their very own spouse. While this destination is inevitable to the plot is not a surprise, the trip leading up to it, and the whirlwind of events that follows this discovery, is what really makes this film such an enjoyable ride.
Naturally when the two uncover their spouse’s true identity, the instincts of their professions as well as their pent up frustrations come out in an orgy of passion and violence that leaves a trail of devastation. The various encounters between the Smiths not only escalate on the violence scale, but due to issue such as pride, reputations, and betrayal, the objectivity and impersonal nature of their work are abandoned.
I think Shakespeare put it best when he said that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, as the scenes of Jane Smith unloading her pent up fury are almost as hysterical as the segments where John Smith takes his turn at the plate.
A prime example of the films ability to mix action and comedy to perfection is the classic dance scene where the two attempt to disarm one another in an effort to get the upper hand. Pitt and Jolie dance and exchanges barbs, as they keep the beat and discard the weapons they find, as they plot to gain the upper hand.
The film did lose a bit of its amazing momentum about a third of the way in, before regrouping and bringing the film to an action packed and very satisfying conclusion. The supporting work of Vince Vaughn is very funny, but sadly his presence is limited. The films works very well because the chemistry between the two leads is very strong, as are the action and humor sequences. Without a doubt one of the best movies of the summer and one not to be missed
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Knight of Cups (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I’ll just come out and say it … This movie for all it’s grandeur with its ensemble cast and it’s amazing photographic work and direction is something that should be shown at film festivals and in art house movie theaters and NOT your mainstream chain theaters. Someplace where you can order a meal and perhaps a glass of wine or a local ale. Why? If the movie has Christian Bale in its cast you know there’s going to be drama involved regardless of whether or not the movie itself is dramatic. THIS particular film is a drama that could be compared to something written by Shakespeare.
‘Knight Of Cups’ is a romantic drama written and directed by Terrence Malick and stars an ensemble cast including Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Antonio Banderas, Natalie Portman, Brian Dennehy, Armin Muller-Stahl, Isabel Lucas, Freida Pinto, Wes Bentley, Imogen Poots, Teresa Palmer, and Peter Matthiessen.
“Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep.”
Rick (Bale) is a successful writer born into a powerful family in L.A. The son of Joseph (Dennehy) and brother to Barry (Bently). After the lose of a second brother as well as his mother, Rick becomes disillusioned and loses himself in the excesses found in the ‘City Of Angles’ and nearby Las Vegas. Along this aimless journey he encounters 6 different women Nancy (Blanchett) a doctor, Elizabeth (Portman) a married woman, Helen (Pinto), Isabel (Lucas), Karen (Palmer), and Della (Poots) looking to form some sort of bond or connection. Perhaps even to discover love only to encounter more lose. He wanders from cities, to beaches, then from mountains to deserts. Searching for something meaningful, some purpose all the while trying to hold what remains of his family and his own sanity together and along the way encounters a cast of colorful characters who have their own ideas about life and their own views on how he should live his.
This film was pretty much Malick’s attempt at making an art film with a large budget and a star studded cast. That’s just the thing. He succeeded and it was just too much. From a technical standpoint, it was wonderfully directed with its landscapes and ‘not-the-norm’ angles and close-ups but it simultaneously took away from the people and the story. It was almost as though they were trying to combine a film on the Discovery Channel with a drama. The film was two minutes shy of 2 hours long. Had the director been able to shave 20 minutes from it, then I could see it given a limited run in major theaters. I have to give kudos to the actors and actresses who were on top of their game which made the film worth sitting through once. The film is rated R for scenes of violence, nudity, and language. If you’re enduring one of those days where you just need to disappear and NOT communicate with anyone for a while, go see this movie. It’s runtime and complexity will help take your mind off your troubles. I’d highly recommend though that you save the film for viewing at home. I’ll give this film 3 out of 5 stars.
‘Knight Of Cups’ is a romantic drama written and directed by Terrence Malick and stars an ensemble cast including Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Antonio Banderas, Natalie Portman, Brian Dennehy, Armin Muller-Stahl, Isabel Lucas, Freida Pinto, Wes Bentley, Imogen Poots, Teresa Palmer, and Peter Matthiessen.
“Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep.”
Rick (Bale) is a successful writer born into a powerful family in L.A. The son of Joseph (Dennehy) and brother to Barry (Bently). After the lose of a second brother as well as his mother, Rick becomes disillusioned and loses himself in the excesses found in the ‘City Of Angles’ and nearby Las Vegas. Along this aimless journey he encounters 6 different women Nancy (Blanchett) a doctor, Elizabeth (Portman) a married woman, Helen (Pinto), Isabel (Lucas), Karen (Palmer), and Della (Poots) looking to form some sort of bond or connection. Perhaps even to discover love only to encounter more lose. He wanders from cities, to beaches, then from mountains to deserts. Searching for something meaningful, some purpose all the while trying to hold what remains of his family and his own sanity together and along the way encounters a cast of colorful characters who have their own ideas about life and their own views on how he should live his.
This film was pretty much Malick’s attempt at making an art film with a large budget and a star studded cast. That’s just the thing. He succeeded and it was just too much. From a technical standpoint, it was wonderfully directed with its landscapes and ‘not-the-norm’ angles and close-ups but it simultaneously took away from the people and the story. It was almost as though they were trying to combine a film on the Discovery Channel with a drama. The film was two minutes shy of 2 hours long. Had the director been able to shave 20 minutes from it, then I could see it given a limited run in major theaters. I have to give kudos to the actors and actresses who were on top of their game which made the film worth sitting through once. The film is rated R for scenes of violence, nudity, and language. If you’re enduring one of those days where you just need to disappear and NOT communicate with anyone for a while, go see this movie. It’s runtime and complexity will help take your mind off your troubles. I’d highly recommend though that you save the film for viewing at home. I’ll give this film 3 out of 5 stars.