Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Feb 1, 2021
3 Strong Actors Elevate This Above Mediocrity
Generally, when a movie is “dumped” in January, it is a sure sign of a bad film, filled with Liam Neeson kicking butt or CGI monsters attacking a small group of survivors in an isolated location, but these being times that they are, Warner Brothers release of THE LITTLE THINGS simultaneously in Movie Theaters and on HBO MAX gave me reason to change my thinking.
And…I’m glad I did for THE LITTLE THINGS is an intriguing mystery with 3 very strong actors going toe-to-toe with each other.
Written and Directed by John Lee Hancock (THE BLIND SIDE), THE LITTLE THINGS stars the great Denzel Washington as a former L.A. Detective (now a Sherriff in some small town) who returns to L.A. and teams up with his hot shot replacement (Rami Malek) to track down a serial killer (the main suspect being Jared Leto).
It is a moody, atmospheric piece with Hancock taking his time telling the story he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell it, letting this trio of Oscar winning actors take over the story while he creates interesting, moody pictures/scenarios/scenes.
And…this approach mostly works. 2 time Oscar winner Denzel Washington, as you can imagine, is terrific as Joe “Deke” Deacon a cracker-jack Detective that is living with some demons from his last case in L.A.. He is in 90% of the scenes in this film and he is more than capable of carrying this film through some pretty slow and sloggy scenes.
I would love to say that Oscar winner Rami Malek is equal to the task of playing against Washington and keeping the middle part of this film interesting - but he just isn’t. Not to say that Malek is bad - he is very good. He just isn’t as good as Washington and the chemistry between these two characters was just not all that strong.
That said…without spoiling anything…Malek has a scene at the end of this film where he is TERRIFIC and shows that he is a VERY, VERY good actor.
The wild card in this film is Oscar winner Jared Leto as the prime suspect in this case - and he is more than up to the task. As is often the case in these sorts of film (think David Fincher’s SEVEN), Leto does not show up in full force until about 2/3 of the way through the film and that is too bad for he creates sparks on the screen the moment he enters the proceedings and the 3 way interrogation scene between these 3 Oscar winners is, I’m sure, what drew all 3 of these performers to this project and is the best thing in the film.
The praise and the criticism of this film must fall on Writer/Director Hancock, for he was smart enough to cast these 3 actors and direct them well while also falling prey to falling in love too much with the script and atmosphere he created to the detriment of the film. He could have used someone telling him to speed things up.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And…I’m glad I did for THE LITTLE THINGS is an intriguing mystery with 3 very strong actors going toe-to-toe with each other.
Written and Directed by John Lee Hancock (THE BLIND SIDE), THE LITTLE THINGS stars the great Denzel Washington as a former L.A. Detective (now a Sherriff in some small town) who returns to L.A. and teams up with his hot shot replacement (Rami Malek) to track down a serial killer (the main suspect being Jared Leto).
It is a moody, atmospheric piece with Hancock taking his time telling the story he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell it, letting this trio of Oscar winning actors take over the story while he creates interesting, moody pictures/scenarios/scenes.
And…this approach mostly works. 2 time Oscar winner Denzel Washington, as you can imagine, is terrific as Joe “Deke” Deacon a cracker-jack Detective that is living with some demons from his last case in L.A.. He is in 90% of the scenes in this film and he is more than capable of carrying this film through some pretty slow and sloggy scenes.
I would love to say that Oscar winner Rami Malek is equal to the task of playing against Washington and keeping the middle part of this film interesting - but he just isn’t. Not to say that Malek is bad - he is very good. He just isn’t as good as Washington and the chemistry between these two characters was just not all that strong.
That said…without spoiling anything…Malek has a scene at the end of this film where he is TERRIFIC and shows that he is a VERY, VERY good actor.
The wild card in this film is Oscar winner Jared Leto as the prime suspect in this case - and he is more than up to the task. As is often the case in these sorts of film (think David Fincher’s SEVEN), Leto does not show up in full force until about 2/3 of the way through the film and that is too bad for he creates sparks on the screen the moment he enters the proceedings and the 3 way interrogation scene between these 3 Oscar winners is, I’m sure, what drew all 3 of these performers to this project and is the best thing in the film.
The praise and the criticism of this film must fall on Writer/Director Hancock, for he was smart enough to cast these 3 actors and direct them well while also falling prey to falling in love too much with the script and atmosphere he created to the detriment of the film. He could have used someone telling him to speed things up.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
J.K. Simmons recommended Juno (2007) in Movies (curated)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Trouble Girls in Books
Jun 3, 2021
A queer Thelma & Louise that doesn't live up to its potential
High school best friends Trixie and Lux are headed for a much-needed weekend getaway. Trixie needs to forget about her depressing waitress job, where all the men are "hogs" and her sick mom, and Lux needs to escape her overbearing dad. But a horrific night of violence changes everything and Trixie and Lux find themselves fugitives, running away from their tiny West Virginia town and everything they've ever known. Before they know it, they are wanted by the police, their faces splashed across social media. The girls are scared and horrified--on an unplanned road trip where the only thing they can count on is each other.
The premise of this book sounded amazing -- a queer "Thelma & Louise." Unfortunately, it all fell apart for me. Rather than being a #MeToo rallying cry, this was a depressing and stressful read, featuring two teens who make a bunch of stupid and ill-fated decisions.
I definitely understand the overall idea for TROUBLE GIRLS and even why Trixie and Lux run, afraid that no one will believe their story. But the choices they make along the way--spending their money on junk, not trusting each other, stealing and lying... and everything else. It's maddening. They do not act like two smart girls on the run, but two idiots who do not believe in one another. Trixie's infatuation with Lux clouds everything, and Lux comes across as this adored princess with no real personality of her own.
We're (eventually) told a bit of Trixie's backstory, including why we have to read the word "hog" in what feels like every other darn sentence, but the character development here is severely lacking. Trixie has a sick mom and a dark secret. Lux... likes makeup and her camera? I think this story would have would worked so much more if we knew how and why these two teens ticked. Why, exactly, was Trixie so in love with Lux? How exactly did Lux feel back? There's a weird switch that turns at some point in the book, and it made no sense to me. If you're going to give me a queer story, give me queer characters who truly feel for one another and whose love is based in reality.
Trixie and Lux's story is supposed to have a #MeToo angle to it, and it does, in some ways, but this was not a #MeToo anthem to me. It's two girls running away, trying to figure out maps on the back roads, and making poor decisions as they flee what they've done. While, again, I understand why they run, the story I wanted to read was Trixie and Lux returning to Blue Bottle and fighting along side the Intersectional Feminist Union and the other women they supposedly "rally" with a few misplaced social media posts. It was these women and Judy, Trixie's co-worker back home, whose life I wanted to know about--I would have enjoyed that book much more!
Overall, this book can tug at your heart strings, but also frustrate you to no end. There was much to its overall premise, but most of it did not work for me. 2.5 stars (Trigger warning: sexual assault, rape)
The premise of this book sounded amazing -- a queer "Thelma & Louise." Unfortunately, it all fell apart for me. Rather than being a #MeToo rallying cry, this was a depressing and stressful read, featuring two teens who make a bunch of stupid and ill-fated decisions.
I definitely understand the overall idea for TROUBLE GIRLS and even why Trixie and Lux run, afraid that no one will believe their story. But the choices they make along the way--spending their money on junk, not trusting each other, stealing and lying... and everything else. It's maddening. They do not act like two smart girls on the run, but two idiots who do not believe in one another. Trixie's infatuation with Lux clouds everything, and Lux comes across as this adored princess with no real personality of her own.
We're (eventually) told a bit of Trixie's backstory, including why we have to read the word "hog" in what feels like every other darn sentence, but the character development here is severely lacking. Trixie has a sick mom and a dark secret. Lux... likes makeup and her camera? I think this story would have would worked so much more if we knew how and why these two teens ticked. Why, exactly, was Trixie so in love with Lux? How exactly did Lux feel back? There's a weird switch that turns at some point in the book, and it made no sense to me. If you're going to give me a queer story, give me queer characters who truly feel for one another and whose love is based in reality.
Trixie and Lux's story is supposed to have a #MeToo angle to it, and it does, in some ways, but this was not a #MeToo anthem to me. It's two girls running away, trying to figure out maps on the back roads, and making poor decisions as they flee what they've done. While, again, I understand why they run, the story I wanted to read was Trixie and Lux returning to Blue Bottle and fighting along side the Intersectional Feminist Union and the other women they supposedly "rally" with a few misplaced social media posts. It was these women and Judy, Trixie's co-worker back home, whose life I wanted to know about--I would have enjoyed that book much more!
Overall, this book can tug at your heart strings, but also frustrate you to no end. There was much to its overall premise, but most of it did not work for me. 2.5 stars (Trigger warning: sexual assault, rape)
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Boys - Season 2 in TV
Oct 10, 2020
Excellent, but not quite as good as the first
For me, the first series of The Boys was a brilliant surprise and the wait for this second series has been a rather frustrating and impatient experience, especially as Amazon decided not to release the entire series at once. Fortunately by the time the credits rolled on the series 2 finale, it was definitely worth the wait.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Stories You Tell in Books
Jul 12, 2019
Private Investigator Roxane Weary and her brother, Andrew, are night owls, but it's still never good news when she gets a call from Andrew in the middle of the night. This time, Andrew tells her that he's just had the strangest visit from Addison Stowe, a young woman who used to work with him at the hotel where he tends bar. She seemed panicked and scared, begging to used Andrew's phone, and she disappeared almost as quickly as she arrived. At Andrew's pleading, Roxane starts looking for Addison, but she quickly realizes this is not a straightforward case. Soon the police are on Addison's trail--and Andrew's too. Add a dead cop to the mix, and it looks like Andrew could be mixed up in something serious.
"Clients hired me to find lots of things, and I took them all seriously--but people, most of all."
So, I won't lie. I have a particular affinity for one Roxane Weary, our sarcastic, intelligent, bisexual PI. This is the third book in Roxane's series, and I just love them all. You know how you can give your iPhone a name? Well, one of mine (I have one for work and one for personal use, okay) is named Roxane. This gritty PI has wormed her way into my heart. And I've said it before and I'll say it again--it's just so refreshing to have a bisexual character in mainstream fiction who is real. She's not a crazy person or a murderer, she's just a smart, complex character. The main character. And when Roxane is talking, it sounds like my own friends hanging out. It makes me happy.
"The state of straight people was troubling."
This book finds Roxane on a slightly personal quest, as her search for Addison gets real fast, once it looks like Andrew could be in some big time trouble. Her searching leads her to a shady nightclub--including its shifty manager--and some of Addison's suburban friends. We also, as mentioned, have a dead cop, meaning that Tom is in full force in this one. Tom is the former partner of Roxane's late father, and Roxane's old flame. I'm happy to report that there's plenty happening in Roxane's personal life--both with Catherine and Tom. Lots of sexual tension and witty banter on a variety of fronts. (And I am the only one who would be perfectly fine if Catherine just disappeared? Roxane deserves someone who treats her properly.)
Anyway, despite a cast of recurring characters, this one will standalone just fine. That being said, if you haven't read the first two books, I highly recommend them. The conversational first-person style Lepionka uses for Roxane is amazing and draws you in from the start. I adore Roxane's voice. (Partially because I deem her my kindred spirit--see below.)
"Apparently he was one of those people who listened to and deleted messages instead of just reading the transcription and ignoring it like I did."
Roxane is a witty, awesome, complex main character, and she's nearly impossible not to love. The story itself is dark and twisted, with plenty of twists and turns to keep you guessing. No gimmicks, just a good mystery. There's lots of humor, lots of surprises, and lots of Roxane, one of the best PIs around. 4.5 stars.
"Clients hired me to find lots of things, and I took them all seriously--but people, most of all."
So, I won't lie. I have a particular affinity for one Roxane Weary, our sarcastic, intelligent, bisexual PI. This is the third book in Roxane's series, and I just love them all. You know how you can give your iPhone a name? Well, one of mine (I have one for work and one for personal use, okay) is named Roxane. This gritty PI has wormed her way into my heart. And I've said it before and I'll say it again--it's just so refreshing to have a bisexual character in mainstream fiction who is real. She's not a crazy person or a murderer, she's just a smart, complex character. The main character. And when Roxane is talking, it sounds like my own friends hanging out. It makes me happy.
"The state of straight people was troubling."
This book finds Roxane on a slightly personal quest, as her search for Addison gets real fast, once it looks like Andrew could be in some big time trouble. Her searching leads her to a shady nightclub--including its shifty manager--and some of Addison's suburban friends. We also, as mentioned, have a dead cop, meaning that Tom is in full force in this one. Tom is the former partner of Roxane's late father, and Roxane's old flame. I'm happy to report that there's plenty happening in Roxane's personal life--both with Catherine and Tom. Lots of sexual tension and witty banter on a variety of fronts. (And I am the only one who would be perfectly fine if Catherine just disappeared? Roxane deserves someone who treats her properly.)
Anyway, despite a cast of recurring characters, this one will standalone just fine. That being said, if you haven't read the first two books, I highly recommend them. The conversational first-person style Lepionka uses for Roxane is amazing and draws you in from the start. I adore Roxane's voice. (Partially because I deem her my kindred spirit--see below.)
"Apparently he was one of those people who listened to and deleted messages instead of just reading the transcription and ignoring it like I did."
Roxane is a witty, awesome, complex main character, and she's nearly impossible not to love. The story itself is dark and twisted, with plenty of twists and turns to keep you guessing. No gimmicks, just a good mystery. There's lots of humor, lots of surprises, and lots of Roxane, one of the best PIs around. 4.5 stars.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 14, 2019
A nice "palate cleanser" after Endgame
After the richness - both in emotion and spectacle - of the previous entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (that would be the epic that is AVENGERS: ENDGAME), SPIDERMAN: FAR FROM HOME is a palate cleanser.
And that is a smart move by the honchos at Marvel. It brings us back into this Universe acknowledging - and playing homage to - the previous film - but also points us to the future as we fondly remember, but don't dwell on, the past. This Spidey-film takes the titular web-slinger on a roadtrip to Europe where he teams up with Mysterio to fight the Elementals as Peter Parker grapples with the legacy of Tony Stark and a blossoming relationship with MJ.
And...it's a darn fine film. Director Jon Watts and writers Chis McKenna and Erik Sommers craft a light, fun action flick that leans heavily on the personality and charm of Peter Parker/Spiderman and this succeeds tremendously thanks to the continued strong performance of Tom Holland. He has grown into this role and has now fully embraced it a makes it his own. This is the 5th film that Holland has played Spiderman and he is fully in control of the character and is a joyous character to watch.
Ably joining in is Jake Gyllenhaal as Mysterio - another hero who just might be another strong mentor-like presence for Parker. A fine actor of interesting dimensions, Gyllenhaal understands the type of film that he is in and adapts his performance (and presence) accordingly. Jacob Batalon returns as Peter's friend Ned, and he is everything we've come to expect from Ned. The same can be said for Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan and Marisa Tomei's Aunt May - both are welcome, warming, presences that help everyone feel good.
The biggest surprise for me is Zendaya's performance as MJ - I really enjoyed it - and that's a surprise. It is one of those nuanced-type performances (in a Superhero film - of all things) that will make me re-assess my thinking about her as a performer. I thought she was that good.
Samuel L. Jackson and Cobie Smulders reprise their roles as Nick Fury and Maria Hill and they are solid while Martin Starr and J.B. Smoove provide broad comic relief as the two teachers who are chaperones of these high school kids (remember they are high school aged in this film - they'll have to graduate into college for the next one, their age is beginning to show). I've read/heard some negative comments on how "out of place" the 2 teachers were in style to the rest of this film (and the MCU in general) and I couldn't disagree more. I thought they brought just the right size of comedy to what is a light film.
And, make no mistake, this is a light film (which is why I call it a "palate cleanser" after Endgame) and that's just fine. The stakes are an excuse to spend time with this characters - and to dazzle with some interesting special effects that I thought were very well done.
If you're into Spiderman - or the Marvel Cinematic Universe - you'll like this film.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is a smart move by the honchos at Marvel. It brings us back into this Universe acknowledging - and playing homage to - the previous film - but also points us to the future as we fondly remember, but don't dwell on, the past. This Spidey-film takes the titular web-slinger on a roadtrip to Europe where he teams up with Mysterio to fight the Elementals as Peter Parker grapples with the legacy of Tony Stark and a blossoming relationship with MJ.
And...it's a darn fine film. Director Jon Watts and writers Chis McKenna and Erik Sommers craft a light, fun action flick that leans heavily on the personality and charm of Peter Parker/Spiderman and this succeeds tremendously thanks to the continued strong performance of Tom Holland. He has grown into this role and has now fully embraced it a makes it his own. This is the 5th film that Holland has played Spiderman and he is fully in control of the character and is a joyous character to watch.
Ably joining in is Jake Gyllenhaal as Mysterio - another hero who just might be another strong mentor-like presence for Parker. A fine actor of interesting dimensions, Gyllenhaal understands the type of film that he is in and adapts his performance (and presence) accordingly. Jacob Batalon returns as Peter's friend Ned, and he is everything we've come to expect from Ned. The same can be said for Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan and Marisa Tomei's Aunt May - both are welcome, warming, presences that help everyone feel good.
The biggest surprise for me is Zendaya's performance as MJ - I really enjoyed it - and that's a surprise. It is one of those nuanced-type performances (in a Superhero film - of all things) that will make me re-assess my thinking about her as a performer. I thought she was that good.
Samuel L. Jackson and Cobie Smulders reprise their roles as Nick Fury and Maria Hill and they are solid while Martin Starr and J.B. Smoove provide broad comic relief as the two teachers who are chaperones of these high school kids (remember they are high school aged in this film - they'll have to graduate into college for the next one, their age is beginning to show). I've read/heard some negative comments on how "out of place" the 2 teachers were in style to the rest of this film (and the MCU in general) and I couldn't disagree more. I thought they brought just the right size of comedy to what is a light film.
And, make no mistake, this is a light film (which is why I call it a "palate cleanser" after Endgame) and that's just fine. The stakes are an excuse to spend time with this characters - and to dazzle with some interesting special effects that I thought were very well done.
If you're into Spiderman - or the Marvel Cinematic Universe - you'll like this film.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Notes Writer+ Pro
Productivity and Business
App
NEW UPDATE! +100 NEW FEATURES! Type, handwrite, annotate, draw, highlight, scan & record notes and...
The Last Collection
Book
An American woman becomes entangled in the intense rivalry between iconic fashion designers Coco...
Historical Romance
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Sep 5, 2021
Wonderful - and Family Friendly!
Like most of us, when I first saw the trailer for the Ryan Reynolds comedy, FREE GUY (well over a year ago), I thought this looked like a bad “money grab” that will quickly come and go.
But after it premiered earlier this summer, buzz started to grow - and a few people that I trust recommended it to me, so I decided to check it out.
And…I’m glad I did for FREE GUY is a fun, family-friendly romp with a charismatic Ryan Reynolds anchoring a strong cast in a surprisingly heart-felt film.
Directed by Shawn Levy (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM), Free Guy tells the story of an NPC (Non-Playable Character in a video game) that becomes sentient.
In the capable hands of Director Levy and actor Reynolds, Guy (his character) is charming, earnest and likeable - a trio of qualities that is hard to pull off, but Levy and Reynolds walk this fine line very well, making Guy a character to root for. They wisely steer away from this character becoming cloying and annoying and just keep him charming and sincere.
This is do-able because Levy and screenwriters Matt Lieberman and Zak Penn wisely choose to not make Guy the emotional center of this film, but rather, Guy is the catalyst who moves the plot (and the other characters) towards their final destinations - all the while keeping Guy (basically) the same. A very smart move that has been used in other, successful films (most notably Michael J. Fox in the BACK TO THE FUTURE FILMS).
Jodie Comer (Killing Eve) and Joe Keery (Stranger Things) are a the heart of this film as 2 video game designers that are trying to find proof that their code was stolen by a heartless Video Game mogul (broadly, comically played by Taika Waititi). Both Comer and Keery are pleasant in their roles and they play off of Waititi (and his chief henchman, played with specific focus - this is a compliment - by Utkarsh Ambudkar). Comer and Keery make it easy for the audience to root for them and Waititi and Ambdukar make it easy for the audience to root against them.
Credit for all of this goes to Director Levy. This film has the same feel as NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM. It doesn’t try to do too much, makes the motivations of the good guys and the bad guys very simple to understand and then drops in the variable (Guy) to mix things up - all done with wit, simplicity and charm - a pretty easy combination, that often gets lost in the machinations, but Levy avoids this trap very, very well.
Finally, I have to point out the performance of Lil Rel Howery as Guy’s buddy…named…Buddy. He is the perfect “Best Friend”. Again, Directed to a simple and direct performance by Levy, not trying to be more than he is, but ends up being a character you care about and root for.
A winning combination of Director, Actors and material, FREE GUY isn’t going to win any Oscars, but it is going to do something that very few films these days do - provide entertainment for the entire family.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
But after it premiered earlier this summer, buzz started to grow - and a few people that I trust recommended it to me, so I decided to check it out.
And…I’m glad I did for FREE GUY is a fun, family-friendly romp with a charismatic Ryan Reynolds anchoring a strong cast in a surprisingly heart-felt film.
Directed by Shawn Levy (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM), Free Guy tells the story of an NPC (Non-Playable Character in a video game) that becomes sentient.
In the capable hands of Director Levy and actor Reynolds, Guy (his character) is charming, earnest and likeable - a trio of qualities that is hard to pull off, but Levy and Reynolds walk this fine line very well, making Guy a character to root for. They wisely steer away from this character becoming cloying and annoying and just keep him charming and sincere.
This is do-able because Levy and screenwriters Matt Lieberman and Zak Penn wisely choose to not make Guy the emotional center of this film, but rather, Guy is the catalyst who moves the plot (and the other characters) towards their final destinations - all the while keeping Guy (basically) the same. A very smart move that has been used in other, successful films (most notably Michael J. Fox in the BACK TO THE FUTURE FILMS).
Jodie Comer (Killing Eve) and Joe Keery (Stranger Things) are a the heart of this film as 2 video game designers that are trying to find proof that their code was stolen by a heartless Video Game mogul (broadly, comically played by Taika Waititi). Both Comer and Keery are pleasant in their roles and they play off of Waititi (and his chief henchman, played with specific focus - this is a compliment - by Utkarsh Ambudkar). Comer and Keery make it easy for the audience to root for them and Waititi and Ambdukar make it easy for the audience to root against them.
Credit for all of this goes to Director Levy. This film has the same feel as NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM. It doesn’t try to do too much, makes the motivations of the good guys and the bad guys very simple to understand and then drops in the variable (Guy) to mix things up - all done with wit, simplicity and charm - a pretty easy combination, that often gets lost in the machinations, but Levy avoids this trap very, very well.
Finally, I have to point out the performance of Lil Rel Howery as Guy’s buddy…named…Buddy. He is the perfect “Best Friend”. Again, Directed to a simple and direct performance by Levy, not trying to be more than he is, but ends up being a character you care about and root for.
A winning combination of Director, Actors and material, FREE GUY isn’t going to win any Oscars, but it is going to do something that very few films these days do - provide entertainment for the entire family.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Taken (Celestial Blues, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Even though I'm not especially fond of angels, I decided to try out this new series based on my previous experiences with Vicki Pettersson's work. Sadly, after an intriguing first chapter, any enjoyment I may have expected never came knocking (guess it was too busy knockin' on heaven's door).
Meet one of the two main characters, rockabilly girl Katherine "Kit" Craig. She's an eternally optimistic and peppy reporter whose best friend and co-worker, Nicole, was just murdered while following a lead. Our other MC is a haunted Centurion angel named Griffin Shaw who ushers the newly murdered into the afterlife, otherwise known as the Everlast, while bemoaning the murders of both himself and his wife Evie back in 1960. After making a mistake concerning Nicole, he's been sent back to earth as a human with some angelic senses still intact. Kit and Grif soon meet up and begin investigating the circumstances around Nicole's death, whilst Griffin seeks out any details involving his own.
Problem Number One:
The Cardboard Characters
Character development is supposed to unfold over the course of a book, in this case it actually appeared to deteriorate as the book went on. Kit never developed into anything but one of those annoyingly chipper people you just want to hit with a sledgehammer, while Grif started promisingly enough but then stagnated. They were both very shallow characterizations, and on top of that, I never understood Kit's actions or reactions to just about anything. I never felt her sadness about her best friend's death, whom she rarely gave a passing thought, believed she was smart (by the end, I thought her a dolt), or seem in any way human with nary a rational thought in her head. About mid-way through the book, Grif tells her he's an angel after they kiss, so what does she do? Does she a) run away screaming, b) think he's a few feathers short of a goose and tell him to get hell out of her house and life, or c) have a calm Q&A session followed by giving him a whatfor that consists of "I won't kiss you again" and "you're watching me walk out that door (in her own house) because you can't handle any emotion blah, blah, blah by pretending you're an angel" and then proceed to attend a charity event wherein she acts and converses normally, like nothing happened? If you picked "c" *ding ding ding*, you're a winner! Because as we all know, any sensible guy will pull out the "I'm an angel" trick and expect a woman to believe him. *rolls eyes* Never was it ever crystal clear if Kit thought Grif was either crazy or a liar. It was all a bit hazy, but what can you expect from someone we're never allowed to know? All we discern is she dresses and lives (somewhat) rockabilly, but it's all a veneer to her hollowness inside, which led me to dub her Rockabilly Barbie.
<img src="http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj183/piscesrain/reviews/RockabillyBarbie.jpg">;
Because that's all she is and nothing more. The only character that I found a little more well-rounded was the secondary character Bridget Moore and the two Centurions introduced close to the end. Everyone else was either forgettably two-dimensional or they were a caricature, a la Caleb Chambers and Paul Raggio.
Problem Number Two:
The Relationship(s)
I'm expected to believe in a possible relationship between Grif and Rockabilly Barbie, err I mean Kit, but there's not much there to believe in. Like the characters, it was shallow with the same descriptions reiterated over and over again. Basically it's a case of telling instead of showing. I felt no love, maybe some attraction, but that's all she wrote. Likewise I never bought that Kit and Paul could ever have gotten far enough to be married, they were just too different. Most people don't do a 180 after they get married, the seed of who Paul really was deep down inside would have already been there and if Kit was even a fraction astute, she should have caught that. All this served was to be a plot point in the book.
Problem Number Three:
The Plot(s)
The main plot involving Nicole's death and Chambers had a "been there, done that" quality to it. The plot didn't shock me or seem like anything new, I've come across the same before or at least plots that were very close, and it wasn't even told in a fresh way. So I wasn't as affected by anything in the book as I probably should have been, partially due to the indifference I felt and the fact that I figured out everything long before the author dropped, what I guess she thought, were informational bombshells.
The book had three major plotlines: Grif and Evie's deaths, Nicole's death/prostitution ring, and Grif and the Pure Anas' philosophical moments. They weren't juggled well at all. Ms. Pettersson should have picked only one and paid more attention to developing that specific plot and the characters. The scenes with Anas (or Anne) especially didn't mesh with the other stories and felt as if the author was overreaching the boundaries set up by the book. One scene in particular was extremely bizarre and pointless to the book as a whole.
Where was the noir? I've seen enough film noirs to know it ain't here.
Problem Number Four:
The Ending
What happened at the end is what I'd expect in a book that's exclusively romance and not in a mystery/urban fantasy hybrid, which made the rushed ending seem even more ridiculous and sappy. It was incredibly unbelievable to the story and didn't seem to set up the next book in any way. Also, one of the plotlines was all but left dangling with no foreshadowing or anything. Poor, poor, poor execution. Don't expound on a storyline if you're not going to finish it up or at least leave it dangling in a way that makes the reader want to come back. All that boring set-up for a completely stupid and cheesy ending. I expected rainbows and unicorns to pop out at any moment.
Overall the book felt more like a rough copy than a finished one and definitely could have used a few more goings over. Several descriptions were rushed and chaotic or simply poorly done so that I was scrambling to picture what was going on. The book is almost 400 pages and it is simply too long. With so many storylines, I'm not sure how they managed to both crawl and have very little action at the same time. I was going to give this two stars because I didn't hate the book, that would imply that it elicited any feelings what-so-ever, but the truth of the matter is that there isn't one thing I really liked about the book either. The only way I'd read a sequel to the bafflingly-named Celestial Blues series is if it featured different leads like the aforementioned Centurions, and even then I'd cautiously dip my toes into the book.
Originally reviewed: June 29
Received: Amazon Vine
Meet one of the two main characters, rockabilly girl Katherine "Kit" Craig. She's an eternally optimistic and peppy reporter whose best friend and co-worker, Nicole, was just murdered while following a lead. Our other MC is a haunted Centurion angel named Griffin Shaw who ushers the newly murdered into the afterlife, otherwise known as the Everlast, while bemoaning the murders of both himself and his wife Evie back in 1960. After making a mistake concerning Nicole, he's been sent back to earth as a human with some angelic senses still intact. Kit and Grif soon meet up and begin investigating the circumstances around Nicole's death, whilst Griffin seeks out any details involving his own.
Problem Number One:
The Cardboard Characters
Character development is supposed to unfold over the course of a book, in this case it actually appeared to deteriorate as the book went on. Kit never developed into anything but one of those annoyingly chipper people you just want to hit with a sledgehammer, while Grif started promisingly enough but then stagnated. They were both very shallow characterizations, and on top of that, I never understood Kit's actions or reactions to just about anything. I never felt her sadness about her best friend's death, whom she rarely gave a passing thought, believed she was smart (by the end, I thought her a dolt), or seem in any way human with nary a rational thought in her head. About mid-way through the book, Grif tells her he's an angel after they kiss, so what does she do? Does she a) run away screaming, b) think he's a few feathers short of a goose and tell him to get hell out of her house and life, or c) have a calm Q&A session followed by giving him a whatfor that consists of "I won't kiss you again" and "you're watching me walk out that door (in her own house) because you can't handle any emotion blah, blah, blah by pretending you're an angel" and then proceed to attend a charity event wherein she acts and converses normally, like nothing happened? If you picked "c" *ding ding ding*, you're a winner! Because as we all know, any sensible guy will pull out the "I'm an angel" trick and expect a woman to believe him. *rolls eyes* Never was it ever crystal clear if Kit thought Grif was either crazy or a liar. It was all a bit hazy, but what can you expect from someone we're never allowed to know? All we discern is she dresses and lives (somewhat) rockabilly, but it's all a veneer to her hollowness inside, which led me to dub her Rockabilly Barbie.
<img src="http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj183/piscesrain/reviews/RockabillyBarbie.jpg">;
Because that's all she is and nothing more. The only character that I found a little more well-rounded was the secondary character Bridget Moore and the two Centurions introduced close to the end. Everyone else was either forgettably two-dimensional or they were a caricature, a la Caleb Chambers and Paul Raggio.
Problem Number Two:
The Relationship(s)
I'm expected to believe in a possible relationship between Grif and Rockabilly Barbie, err I mean Kit, but there's not much there to believe in. Like the characters, it was shallow with the same descriptions reiterated over and over again. Basically it's a case of telling instead of showing. I felt no love, maybe some attraction, but that's all she wrote. Likewise I never bought that Kit and Paul could ever have gotten far enough to be married, they were just too different. Most people don't do a 180 after they get married, the seed of who Paul really was deep down inside would have already been there and if Kit was even a fraction astute, she should have caught that. All this served was to be a plot point in the book.
Problem Number Three:
The Plot(s)
The main plot involving Nicole's death and Chambers had a "been there, done that" quality to it. The plot didn't shock me or seem like anything new, I've come across the same before or at least plots that were very close, and it wasn't even told in a fresh way. So I wasn't as affected by anything in the book as I probably should have been, partially due to the indifference I felt and the fact that I figured out everything long before the author dropped, what I guess she thought, were informational bombshells.
The book had three major plotlines: Grif and Evie's deaths, Nicole's death/prostitution ring, and Grif and the Pure Anas' philosophical moments. They weren't juggled well at all. Ms. Pettersson should have picked only one and paid more attention to developing that specific plot and the characters. The scenes with Anas (or Anne) especially didn't mesh with the other stories and felt as if the author was overreaching the boundaries set up by the book. One scene in particular was extremely bizarre and pointless to the book as a whole.
Where was the noir? I've seen enough film noirs to know it ain't here.
Problem Number Four:
The Ending
What happened at the end is what I'd expect in a book that's exclusively romance and not in a mystery/urban fantasy hybrid, which made the rushed ending seem even more ridiculous and sappy. It was incredibly unbelievable to the story and didn't seem to set up the next book in any way. Also, one of the plotlines was all but left dangling with no foreshadowing or anything. Poor, poor, poor execution. Don't expound on a storyline if you're not going to finish it up or at least leave it dangling in a way that makes the reader want to come back. All that boring set-up for a completely stupid and cheesy ending. I expected rainbows and unicorns to pop out at any moment.
Overall the book felt more like a rough copy than a finished one and definitely could have used a few more goings over. Several descriptions were rushed and chaotic or simply poorly done so that I was scrambling to picture what was going on. The book is almost 400 pages and it is simply too long. With so many storylines, I'm not sure how they managed to both crawl and have very little action at the same time. I was going to give this two stars because I didn't hate the book, that would imply that it elicited any feelings what-so-ever, but the truth of the matter is that there isn't one thing I really liked about the book either. The only way I'd read a sequel to the bafflingly-named Celestial Blues series is if it featured different leads like the aforementioned Centurions, and even then I'd cautiously dip my toes into the book.
Originally reviewed: June 29
Received: Amazon Vine