Search
Doctor Who - The Novel Adaptations: Original Sin
Ken Bentley, Andy Lane, John Dorney and Tom Newsom
Book
On 30th Century Earth, the Doctor and Bernice Summerfield encounter the Adjudicator Roz Forrester...
Odd People: Hunting Spies in the First World War
Book
First World War espionage was a fascinating and dangerous affair, spawning widespread paranoia in...
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Faction Paradox: Newtons Sleep (Faction Paradox, #6) in Books
Nov 30, 2020
You know, prior to reading 'Newtons Sleep', I had come to regard Lawrence Miles' 'FP: This Town Will Never Let Us Go' as the one of the best of the FP series overall, with Kelly Hales' 'FP: Erasing Sherlock' as one of the worst. Having finish it last night, I think I would have to rate 'Newtons Sleep' even higher than 'This Town..'.
To describe it.. FWOAR! There's a heckuva lot going on, some of it will make your brain long after you're done! Set in England during the later half of the 17th Century, it deals with the effects of the "War in Heaven" (see also Lawrence Miles' 'FP: The Book of the War'), a War between Gallifrey (referred to as "the Homeworld") and the unnamed Enemy, with Faction Paradox caught in the midst of it. The story has political intrigue, metaphysics, sex, science fiction, and much that will make you scratch your head at times as well as prompting a trip to Wiki (while I have a general knowledge of that period of history, it is not something I am well-versed) now and again.
There are notable real history characters (the poetess, and spy, Aphra Behn) as well as fictional characters such as Nicholas Silver (who has SUCH a role to play!) and..well. SPOILERS! Seriously well-written characters all around, fleshed out enough to get a feel for each and every one. All had a unique voice when I read their dialogue.
The story is twisty-turny, but at the end it all comes together. I will caution you to read it carefully: this is NOT a book to run through quickly! I've been told it will altogether better the second time round, so I expect I will re-read it again sometime in the not-too-distant future.
Read it now: you won't be disappointed!
To describe it.. FWOAR! There's a heckuva lot going on, some of it will make your brain long after you're done! Set in England during the later half of the 17th Century, it deals with the effects of the "War in Heaven" (see also Lawrence Miles' 'FP: The Book of the War'), a War between Gallifrey (referred to as "the Homeworld") and the unnamed Enemy, with Faction Paradox caught in the midst of it. The story has political intrigue, metaphysics, sex, science fiction, and much that will make you scratch your head at times as well as prompting a trip to Wiki (while I have a general knowledge of that period of history, it is not something I am well-versed) now and again.
There are notable real history characters (the poetess, and spy, Aphra Behn) as well as fictional characters such as Nicholas Silver (who has SUCH a role to play!) and..well. SPOILERS! Seriously well-written characters all around, fleshed out enough to get a feel for each and every one. All had a unique voice when I read their dialogue.
The story is twisty-turny, but at the end it all comes together. I will caution you to read it carefully: this is NOT a book to run through quickly! I've been told it will altogether better the second time round, so I expect I will re-read it again sometime in the not-too-distant future.
Read it now: you won't be disappointed!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Kyera (8 KP) rated The Last of August (Charlotte Holmes #2) in Books
Jan 31, 2018
The Last of August introduces us to even more members of the Holmes and Moriarty families. After being framed for murder, what other trouble could Charlotte and Jamie possibly get themselves into? You’d be surprised. Charlotte and Jamie decide to spend Christmas break together in Europe. First, they visit Jamie’s mom where Charlotte gets to experience a more normal family life. Then, they travel to the Holmes manor in Sussex which is much less welcoming and far more confusing. Charlotte’s father, Alistair is imposing, her mother Emma questions Jamie’s motives, and her brother Milo rarely leaves his flat in Berlin. Charlotte’s family is not particularly warm and friendly, so it’s a welcome change when Jamie meets his father’s best friend and Charlotte’s Uncle Leander Holmes. Leander is sociable and kind, more comfortable at parties than the other members of his family and frequently hired to discover art crime/forgeries.
Their uneventful break ends suddenly when Leander disappears mysteriously and Charlotte’s mother is poisoned. These events set Charlotte and Jamie on a whirlwind adventure across Europe to discover the truth. They are joined by August Moriarty, to Jamie’s dismay and a contingent of Milo’s hired grunts. August is likable even though he is a Moriarty and we’re not always sure if we can trust him. We are introduced to his brother Hadrian and his sister Philippa, but not the more ruthless Lucien. I expect he will be the “big bad” for the third book, if not his parents so the reveal and development of their characters will wait until then.
Overall, the mystery and plot of this book were just as interested as the first in the series. There isn’t much else to add without spoilers, so just go read it. Highly recommended to young adult/teen fans of mystery, contemporary, or the classic Sherlock Holmes novels. I fell in love with this series and can’t wait to see how the series is concluded.
Their uneventful break ends suddenly when Leander disappears mysteriously and Charlotte’s mother is poisoned. These events set Charlotte and Jamie on a whirlwind adventure across Europe to discover the truth. They are joined by August Moriarty, to Jamie’s dismay and a contingent of Milo’s hired grunts. August is likable even though he is a Moriarty and we’re not always sure if we can trust him. We are introduced to his brother Hadrian and his sister Philippa, but not the more ruthless Lucien. I expect he will be the “big bad” for the third book, if not his parents so the reveal and development of their characters will wait until then.
Overall, the mystery and plot of this book were just as interested as the first in the series. There isn’t much else to add without spoilers, so just go read it. Highly recommended to young adult/teen fans of mystery, contemporary, or the classic Sherlock Holmes novels. I fell in love with this series and can’t wait to see how the series is concluded.
JT (287 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Guy Richie back to doing what he does best (1 more)
Excellent cast
Twists, turns and carnage
Since Snatch Guy Richie hasn’t covered himself in glory with some of his recent films. The likes of Swept Away, Revolver and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword did little to enhance his street cred.
While Sherlock Holmes and The Man From U.N.C.L.E were certainly enjoyable romps they didn’t have the cutting edge to what Richie does best, the gangster flick. Thankfully The Gentlemen provides everything you could want from that genre and Richie is back on familiar ground.
Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is looking to retire from his current criminal life and plans to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London. However, when rival gangs get wind of his plans there is blackmail, bribery and double-crossing aplenty.
One of the stars of the film is Hugh Grant, who for once is not playing a bumbling English gentry. Instead, he plays a slimy cockney called Fletcher with inside knowledge of what Mickey’s plans are and attempts to use them for his own financial gain.
Grant adds a subtle level of humour to the proceedings and spends most of the time in dialogue with Ray (Charlie Hunnam) Mickey’s right-hand man, who actually delivers a half-decent performance.
The Gentlemen has Richie’s aggressive dialogue which is bathed in neat action set pieces. It’s foul-mouthed and the characters all have their own unique and very distinct personalities. From Colin Farrell’s Coach to Henry Golding’s psychotic Dry Eye they can stand happily alongside some of the greats from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.
The film has a cool swagger about it where everything clicks nicely. There are a few twists and turns along the way which is expected from the British director and it is filled with his trademarks that hit the right notes at the right time. For me, this is by far and away his best film for quite some time.
While Sherlock Holmes and The Man From U.N.C.L.E were certainly enjoyable romps they didn’t have the cutting edge to what Richie does best, the gangster flick. Thankfully The Gentlemen provides everything you could want from that genre and Richie is back on familiar ground.
Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is looking to retire from his current criminal life and plans to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London. However, when rival gangs get wind of his plans there is blackmail, bribery and double-crossing aplenty.
One of the stars of the film is Hugh Grant, who for once is not playing a bumbling English gentry. Instead, he plays a slimy cockney called Fletcher with inside knowledge of what Mickey’s plans are and attempts to use them for his own financial gain.
Grant adds a subtle level of humour to the proceedings and spends most of the time in dialogue with Ray (Charlie Hunnam) Mickey’s right-hand man, who actually delivers a half-decent performance.
The Gentlemen has Richie’s aggressive dialogue which is bathed in neat action set pieces. It’s foul-mouthed and the characters all have their own unique and very distinct personalities. From Colin Farrell’s Coach to Henry Golding’s psychotic Dry Eye they can stand happily alongside some of the greats from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.
The film has a cool swagger about it where everything clicks nicely. There are a few twists and turns along the way which is expected from the British director and it is filled with his trademarks that hit the right notes at the right time. For me, this is by far and away his best film for quite some time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Holmes and Watson (2018) in Movies
Apr 27, 2020
They can't all be winners
Well...they can't all be winners.
I know that Will Ferrell is an "acquired taste" - either you like the "all in" comedy of this man, or you don't. I happen to like Ferrell, his comedy has aged on me like a fine wine. I find that some of his most recent films like THE OTHER GUYS and THE HOUSE are very funny (maybe not as funny as ANCHORMAN...but what is). I think this comedian still has his fastball.
But, sometimes, wine doesn't age well, it turns into vinegar. And for Ferrell, this vinegar is the comedic dud that is HOLMES & WATSON.
Partnering with familiar on-screen partner John C. Reilly (who paired with Ferrell in films like STEP BROTHERS and TALLEDEGA NIGHTS) this film is a parody of the multitude of Sherlock Holmes films - this time showing that not only is Holmes and idiot but so is Watson. But, somehow, they manage to solve the crime and save the day anyway.
Ferrell is (typically) over-the-top and obtuse as Holmes. Usually, this combination works for him (see ANCHORMAN) but it just falls flat here. Same thing for John C. Reilly's Watson - he is just as over-the-top and obtuse and (I think) that's the beginning of the problem here. The two just bounce off each other without the joke landing on either of them - nor does it land of the audience.
Ralph Fiennes (Moriarty), Rebecca Hall (potential girlfriend), Rob Brydon (Inspector Lestrade) and Kelly Macdonald (Mrs. Hudson) all fair poorly with poor material to work with.
Writer/Director Etan (that's Etan, not Ethan) Cohen (IDIOCRACY) does nothing to help things here with either his writing or his direction. My only thought here is that he thought that Ferrell and Reilly could improvise themselves into a good film.
It didn't happen.
Letter Grade: C (because I guffawed out loud - despite myself - a couple of times)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I know that Will Ferrell is an "acquired taste" - either you like the "all in" comedy of this man, or you don't. I happen to like Ferrell, his comedy has aged on me like a fine wine. I find that some of his most recent films like THE OTHER GUYS and THE HOUSE are very funny (maybe not as funny as ANCHORMAN...but what is). I think this comedian still has his fastball.
But, sometimes, wine doesn't age well, it turns into vinegar. And for Ferrell, this vinegar is the comedic dud that is HOLMES & WATSON.
Partnering with familiar on-screen partner John C. Reilly (who paired with Ferrell in films like STEP BROTHERS and TALLEDEGA NIGHTS) this film is a parody of the multitude of Sherlock Holmes films - this time showing that not only is Holmes and idiot but so is Watson. But, somehow, they manage to solve the crime and save the day anyway.
Ferrell is (typically) over-the-top and obtuse as Holmes. Usually, this combination works for him (see ANCHORMAN) but it just falls flat here. Same thing for John C. Reilly's Watson - he is just as over-the-top and obtuse and (I think) that's the beginning of the problem here. The two just bounce off each other without the joke landing on either of them - nor does it land of the audience.
Ralph Fiennes (Moriarty), Rebecca Hall (potential girlfriend), Rob Brydon (Inspector Lestrade) and Kelly Macdonald (Mrs. Hudson) all fair poorly with poor material to work with.
Writer/Director Etan (that's Etan, not Ethan) Cohen (IDIOCRACY) does nothing to help things here with either his writing or his direction. My only thought here is that he thought that Ferrell and Reilly could improvise themselves into a good film.
It didn't happen.
Letter Grade: C (because I guffawed out loud - despite myself - a couple of times)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Life Moves Pretty Fast: The Lessons We Learned from Eighties Movies (and Why We Don't Learn Them from Movies Any More)
Book
Hadley Freeman brings us her personalised guide to American movies from the 1980s - why they are...
Forever Rumpole: The Best of the Rumpole Stories
Book
Forever Rumpole - a hilarious new selection of the very best Rumpole stories by John Mortimer Horace...
The Ghost of Hollow House
8.0
Rate It
Book
Mina Scarletti returns in her most thrilling mystery yet! Perfect for fans of Sherlock Holmes,...
Ghosts Suspense Historical Fiction