Search
Search results
Carma (21 KP) rated My Best Friend's Mardi Gras Wedding (Boys of the Bayou, #1) in Books
Jun 17, 2019
I have never wanted to move to Louisiana, ever. The bugs, the swamps, the heat and humidity, ugh. But after reading this latest installment by Ms Nicholas, I may just have to pack my bags and head south. Ohhhweeee this is a scorcher.
Tori was in New Orleans for Mardi Gras last year, her first vacation in a very long time. While in town she went to a bar where she met Josh. Josh was a typical southern boy, sweet talking, flirt that knew his way around a woman. Thinking his interest in her was just a game he was playing made flirting with him easy as she knew it would go no where, but it was too quick to have these kinds of feelings right? When he suggests meeting back in the same spot in one year if they were both still interested, to show her it wasnt just about a one-night stand, she accepts. Now it is Mardi Gras one year later and she is in town for her best friend Andrews wedding. Should she expose herself and see if he shows?
Josh has been mooning over Tori for a year and is making his way to the bar he worked at last year to see if she shows. He hopes she shows up, she has to, there is no other option. Making his way down Bourbon Street is another story though. At this rate he is going to use up his whole break just making it the few short blocks he needs to walk. Please be there!!!
Tori heads to the bar, with her Mardi Gras mask in place and sees who she thinks is Josh also with a mask on. He sees her and heads her way, calling out to her just before she kisses him. But wait, the kiss though familiar isnt the spark fire kiss that Josh gave her last year. She pulls back to find Andrew under the mask. After apologizing and explaining who she was looking for she finds out the Josh doesnt work there anymore but the let her know where she can find him. She heads out the next day to see if he is still interested in her.
Josh never imagined Tori would come looking for him after she failed to show up at the bar last night. When she arrives at his business he realizes she did show but they missed each other. He also learns about the mistaken kiss and why she is really in town. He doesnt care either way, he is just beyond the moon that Tori is back. He will do whatever it takes to make sure she never goes back to Iowa again.
Tori is used to being handled by Andrew, she tends to be irrational and embarrassing (well at least according to Andrew and her father) so when he tries to reign her in she goes along with it. Knowing Paisley (Andrews fiancé) has it in for her as well thinking she is secretly in love with Andrew isnt helping the situation at all. I wont go in to too much with Paisley and Andrew but I wanted to jump in the book and punch them both. Andrew preys on Toris vulnerability and makes her doubt herself constantly throughout the book. Josh knows he will need to make a big declaration to get Tori to just be herself and accept him and the life he wants to give her.
This book starts a new series, Boys of the Bayou which spins off from Boys of the Big Easy. You do not have to read these books in any order, they are good as standalones but there are character overlaps and some back stories mentioned that if you like to keep things in chronological order may irk you if read out of order. Once again the author give me a 5 star book to consume in rapid fashion. There are so many laugh out loud and real life moments in this book I couldnt even start listing them or this review would be 10 pages long. Just know that the secondary characters are all hysterical and I would love to follow them around in real life 24/7/365. I voluntarily read and advance reader copy without expectations for review. Any and all opinions expressed are my own. You are doing yourself a great disservice by not adding this to your bookshelf, ebook or however you get your next great reads in your hands. Go, go now, go quickly and enjoy.
Tori was in New Orleans for Mardi Gras last year, her first vacation in a very long time. While in town she went to a bar where she met Josh. Josh was a typical southern boy, sweet talking, flirt that knew his way around a woman. Thinking his interest in her was just a game he was playing made flirting with him easy as she knew it would go no where, but it was too quick to have these kinds of feelings right? When he suggests meeting back in the same spot in one year if they were both still interested, to show her it wasnt just about a one-night stand, she accepts. Now it is Mardi Gras one year later and she is in town for her best friend Andrews wedding. Should she expose herself and see if he shows?
Josh has been mooning over Tori for a year and is making his way to the bar he worked at last year to see if she shows. He hopes she shows up, she has to, there is no other option. Making his way down Bourbon Street is another story though. At this rate he is going to use up his whole break just making it the few short blocks he needs to walk. Please be there!!!
Tori heads to the bar, with her Mardi Gras mask in place and sees who she thinks is Josh also with a mask on. He sees her and heads her way, calling out to her just before she kisses him. But wait, the kiss though familiar isnt the spark fire kiss that Josh gave her last year. She pulls back to find Andrew under the mask. After apologizing and explaining who she was looking for she finds out the Josh doesnt work there anymore but the let her know where she can find him. She heads out the next day to see if he is still interested in her.
Josh never imagined Tori would come looking for him after she failed to show up at the bar last night. When she arrives at his business he realizes she did show but they missed each other. He also learns about the mistaken kiss and why she is really in town. He doesnt care either way, he is just beyond the moon that Tori is back. He will do whatever it takes to make sure she never goes back to Iowa again.
Tori is used to being handled by Andrew, she tends to be irrational and embarrassing (well at least according to Andrew and her father) so when he tries to reign her in she goes along with it. Knowing Paisley (Andrews fiancé) has it in for her as well thinking she is secretly in love with Andrew isnt helping the situation at all. I wont go in to too much with Paisley and Andrew but I wanted to jump in the book and punch them both. Andrew preys on Toris vulnerability and makes her doubt herself constantly throughout the book. Josh knows he will need to make a big declaration to get Tori to just be herself and accept him and the life he wants to give her.
This book starts a new series, Boys of the Bayou which spins off from Boys of the Big Easy. You do not have to read these books in any order, they are good as standalones but there are character overlaps and some back stories mentioned that if you like to keep things in chronological order may irk you if read out of order. Once again the author give me a 5 star book to consume in rapid fashion. There are so many laugh out loud and real life moments in this book I couldnt even start listing them or this review would be 10 pages long. Just know that the secondary characters are all hysterical and I would love to follow them around in real life 24/7/365. I voluntarily read and advance reader copy without expectations for review. Any and all opinions expressed are my own. You are doing yourself a great disservice by not adding this to your bookshelf, ebook or however you get your next great reads in your hands. Go, go now, go quickly and enjoy.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Vacation without Aggravation.”
The “Green Book” was a handbook (now, thankfully, out of print) for blacks travelling in the southern states of the US , who want to stay in or dine in places they will be welcomed rather than abused. It is of course 1962 and Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General has racial equality strongly in his firing line.
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Pixie (2020) in Movies
Nov 2, 2020
Olivia Cooke - utterly enchanting (1 more)
Just the right balance of black humour and Tarantino-esque violence
Once upon a Time in the West... of Ireland
You know sometimes when you see a trailer you think "oh yeah - this is a must see"! The trailer for "Pixie" (see below) was one such moment for me. A spaghetti western set in Sligo? With Alec Baldwin as a "deadly gangster priest"? Yes, yes, yes!
In a remote Irish church, two Irish priests and two "visiting Afghan Catholic priests" are gunned down by a couple of losers in animal masks - Fergus (Fra Fee) and Colin (Rory Fleck Byrne) - over a stash of MDMA worth a million Euros. This reignites a simmering gang war between the gangster families of Dermot O'Brien (Colm Meaney) and Father Hector McGrath (Alec Baldwin). Linking everything together is Pixie (Olivia Cooke), O'Brien's daughter, who has a magnetic effect on men. She is somehow subtly the woman controlling everything going on.
Drawn into the mayhem are hapless teens Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack) - both of who have the hots for Pixie - who embark on a wild and bloody road-trip around southern Ireland.
Key to your belief in the ridiculous story is that the character of Pixie has to have the beauty and charisma to utterly enslave the poor men she crosses paths with: taking a "Kalashnikov to their hearts" as drug dealer Daniel (Chris Walley) puts it. And Olivia Cooke - so good in "Ready Player One" - absolutely and completely nails the role. I'm utterly in love with her after this movie, and she's thirty years too young for me! There's a sparkle and a mischief behind her that reminded me strongly of a young Audrey Hepburn.
Supporting her really well are the "Harry and Ron" to Cooke's Hermione - Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor in "Bohemian Rhapsody") and Daryl McCormack. And the trio make a truly memorable "love triangle". A bedroom scene manages to be both quietly erotic and excruciatingly funny in equal measure.
The direction here is by Barnaby Thompson, who's better known as a producer with the only previous movie directing credits being the St Trinian's reboots in 2007/09. Here he manages to channel some of the quirky camera shots of the likes of Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn and mix them with the black humour and comedic gore of Quentin Tarantino. The taciturn hit-man Seamus (Ned Dennehy) typifies the comedy on offer, using a Land Rover to drag a poor victim round in a figure of eight on a soggy moor to make him talk!
Where I think the movie wimps out a bit is in an ecclesiastical shoot-out finale. Vaughn's "Kingsman: The Secret Service" set the bar here for completely outrageous and out-there church-based violence. Here, the scene is both tame by comparison (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also highly predictable. Given this is supposed to be "a plan", none of it feels to be very well thought-through! As such, belief can only be suspended for so long.
The visuals and music are fab. The cinematography - by veteran John de Borman - makes the west Ireland coast look utterly glorious and the Irish tourist board must have been delighted. There are also some beautifully-framed shots: a boot-eye (US: trunk-eye) perspective is fabulous, and there's a gasp-inducing fade-back to Pixie's face following a flashback. And a shout-out too to the editing by Robbie Morrison, since some of the plot twists are delivered as expert surprises.
The music - by Gerry Diver and David Holmes - is also spectacularly good at propelling the action and maintaining the feel-good theme.
Where I did have issues was with the audio mix. I'm sure there were a bunch of clever one-liners buried in there, but the combination of the accents (and I've worked in Northern Ireland for 20 years and am "tuned in"!) and the sound quality meant I missed a number of them. I will need another watch with subtitles to catch them all.
Thanks to ANOTHER WRETCHED LOCKDOWN in the UK this was my last trip to the cinema for at least a month: I was one of only four viewers in the "Odeon" cinema for this showing. Because it's a great shame that so few people will get to see this (at least for a while), since its the sort of feelgood movie that we all need right now. Slick and utterly entertaining, I'll quietly predict that this one will gain a following as a mini-cult-classic when it gets to streaming services. Recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check-out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/11/02/pixie-once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-of-ireland/. Thanks.)
In a remote Irish church, two Irish priests and two "visiting Afghan Catholic priests" are gunned down by a couple of losers in animal masks - Fergus (Fra Fee) and Colin (Rory Fleck Byrne) - over a stash of MDMA worth a million Euros. This reignites a simmering gang war between the gangster families of Dermot O'Brien (Colm Meaney) and Father Hector McGrath (Alec Baldwin). Linking everything together is Pixie (Olivia Cooke), O'Brien's daughter, who has a magnetic effect on men. She is somehow subtly the woman controlling everything going on.
Drawn into the mayhem are hapless teens Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack) - both of who have the hots for Pixie - who embark on a wild and bloody road-trip around southern Ireland.
Key to your belief in the ridiculous story is that the character of Pixie has to have the beauty and charisma to utterly enslave the poor men she crosses paths with: taking a "Kalashnikov to their hearts" as drug dealer Daniel (Chris Walley) puts it. And Olivia Cooke - so good in "Ready Player One" - absolutely and completely nails the role. I'm utterly in love with her after this movie, and she's thirty years too young for me! There's a sparkle and a mischief behind her that reminded me strongly of a young Audrey Hepburn.
Supporting her really well are the "Harry and Ron" to Cooke's Hermione - Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor in "Bohemian Rhapsody") and Daryl McCormack. And the trio make a truly memorable "love triangle". A bedroom scene manages to be both quietly erotic and excruciatingly funny in equal measure.
The direction here is by Barnaby Thompson, who's better known as a producer with the only previous movie directing credits being the St Trinian's reboots in 2007/09. Here he manages to channel some of the quirky camera shots of the likes of Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn and mix them with the black humour and comedic gore of Quentin Tarantino. The taciturn hit-man Seamus (Ned Dennehy) typifies the comedy on offer, using a Land Rover to drag a poor victim round in a figure of eight on a soggy moor to make him talk!
Where I think the movie wimps out a bit is in an ecclesiastical shoot-out finale. Vaughn's "Kingsman: The Secret Service" set the bar here for completely outrageous and out-there church-based violence. Here, the scene is both tame by comparison (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also highly predictable. Given this is supposed to be "a plan", none of it feels to be very well thought-through! As such, belief can only be suspended for so long.
The visuals and music are fab. The cinematography - by veteran John de Borman - makes the west Ireland coast look utterly glorious and the Irish tourist board must have been delighted. There are also some beautifully-framed shots: a boot-eye (US: trunk-eye) perspective is fabulous, and there's a gasp-inducing fade-back to Pixie's face following a flashback. And a shout-out too to the editing by Robbie Morrison, since some of the plot twists are delivered as expert surprises.
The music - by Gerry Diver and David Holmes - is also spectacularly good at propelling the action and maintaining the feel-good theme.
Where I did have issues was with the audio mix. I'm sure there were a bunch of clever one-liners buried in there, but the combination of the accents (and I've worked in Northern Ireland for 20 years and am "tuned in"!) and the sound quality meant I missed a number of them. I will need another watch with subtitles to catch them all.
Thanks to ANOTHER WRETCHED LOCKDOWN in the UK this was my last trip to the cinema for at least a month: I was one of only four viewers in the "Odeon" cinema for this showing. Because it's a great shame that so few people will get to see this (at least for a while), since its the sort of feelgood movie that we all need right now. Slick and utterly entertaining, I'll quietly predict that this one will gain a following as a mini-cult-classic when it gets to streaming services. Recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check-out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/11/02/pixie-once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-of-ireland/. Thanks.)
Kelly J Tyrrell (3 KP) rated Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again in Books
May 21, 2018
Truly Inspired
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a book review for the not-yet-released Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again by Rachel Held Evans. This book is available in stores June 12th, but you can pre-order it at rachelheldevans.com.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matt Geiger (15 KP) rated Da 5 Bloods (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Da 5 Bloods: Spike Lee Asks Us "What's Going On?"
Spike Lee could not have possibly known that current events and major progresses made in the Black Lives Matter movement would more than likely affect the way audiences perceive Da 5 Bloods, but it’s these developments that, for all of the film’s flaws, imbue it with a sense of urgency befitting of Lee’s filmmaking talents and the beliefs that his filmography has been expounding for decades. In the process of expressing such powerful statements, Lee, in turn, provides a long-overdue voice for the African American experience in the Vietnam War, a conflict that has been portrayed in popular film for about as long as it has been over, and yet strangely, has not been properly balanced in its representation of those who made up the largest percentage of those who served in it.
Continuing Lee’s trend of fusing the past and present together to show that things are definitely still yet to change, Da 5 Bloods finds four African American veterans returning to Vietnam to search for the remains of their commanding officer, “Stormin’” Norman (Chadwick Boseman), and the stash of gold that they found and collectively buried, gold that was initially offered to the indigenous Southern Vietnamese by the CIA as payment for their support of US troops, but taken by the “Bloods” as compensation for their needless sacrifices for a country that has never given them the treatment they deserve despite the fact that they played a pivotal role in helping to make it what it is today. The ultimate goal is nothing that hasn’t been depicted before, but the controversy of the Vietnam War and the experience of combat and violence spills over into today; some of the film’s most striking messages are effectively relayed through a handful of very committed performances from the well-casted ensemble, with Delroy Lindo serving as the beating emotional heart of the film. It’s a career-defining showcase for Lindo, who, as the PTSD-stricken Trump supporter Paul, carries the most weight on his shoulders. He wrestles with personal demons and survivor’s guilt for more than half of his life because of the choices he made during his time in the service, time he and the other Bloods couldn’t avoid because, unlike the privileged white men of America, they were not given the same opportunities to dodge the draft. The disenfranchisement and aimlessness that Lindo merely alludes to through his heart-wrenching performance provides the foundation for the complicated relationship Paul shares with his estranged son, David (Jonathan Majors in the film’s other award-worthy performance), who tags along for the ride in an effort to heal old wounds and bury a deeply-lodged hatchet.
The natural chemistry Lindo shares with the other Bloods (Clarke Peters, Norm Lewis, and Isiah Whitlock, Jr.) is palpable in both the past and present, which blend into one as the screen slides from one aspect ratio to another, shifting from flashbacks of one wartorn world to the present day, in which we find ourselves fighting a different, yet altogether similar kind of war. That these changes in aspect ratios never appear as visually perceived cuts is simply another one of the ways in which Spike Lee seamlessly reminds us that then and now are cut from the same cloth, complete with the same heart-wrenching tragedies that give way to the camaraderie that is necessary to ensure that the proper names get written back into history where they belong. How the four vets are visually represented in their recollections of their commander, which are stripped of the psychedelic imagery associated with previous Vietnam War films in order to cut deeper into understanding what the Bloods’ place in Vietnam is supposed to mean (if it means anything at all), further adds to Lee’s ability to find the haunting parallels between the two time periods that comprise the film.
Spike Lee gets at so many unique and timely concepts that seem perfectly applicable to what’s going on in the world, but where he stumbles is how he goes about explicating these ideas. As a storyteller, Lee is at his best when his narratives gradually develop at a reasonably decisive pace until the tension is fully amplified by the story’s climactic boiling point, at which point there’s no turning back. Such was the nature of Do the Right Thing and, more recently, BlacKkKlansman. The same cannot entirely be said for Da 5 Bloods, which struggles to find a consistent pace and tone during its first act, in which it tries to introduce all of the central ideas at once, along with some unnecessary side stories that carry little to no weight in comparison to the central task and are ultimately resolved in schmaltzy, unsatisfying ways. Moreover, while investment in the film can be maintained throughout, too often is this investment reinforced by the unnecessary moments that serve as detriments to the sequences of dramatic consequence and just might take you out of the story, causing you to restart your investment. Every act has at least one of these moments, with the final result unfortunately falling short of the expectations of some of the genres that are molded into the Bloods’ journey through the Vietnamese jungle. The overtly patriotic and quite distracting score from Terence Blanchard (regardless of whether or not its inclusion was intended as irony) does not help the matter, with many of the best scenes occurring either in silence or alongside the soulful tracks of Marvin Gaye’s What’s Going On album.
Even when Spike Lee stumbles in the execution of his argument, what ultimately matters is the argument itself; while the film begins and ends rather heavy-handedly, telling the viewer things they are bound to already know and incorporating footage that doesn’t need to be there for the point to get across, the sacrifices that Lee chooses to detail and their ramifications for the state of our country to today give the film a degree of value at a time like this, and he is the only director who could bring these issues to the forefront in such an entertaining way. It may not be as good or accessible as his best work, but the calls to action that he has long been affiliated with echo through jungles and cities in equal measure.
What did you guys think of Da 5 Bloods? Agree? Disagree?
Continuing Lee’s trend of fusing the past and present together to show that things are definitely still yet to change, Da 5 Bloods finds four African American veterans returning to Vietnam to search for the remains of their commanding officer, “Stormin’” Norman (Chadwick Boseman), and the stash of gold that they found and collectively buried, gold that was initially offered to the indigenous Southern Vietnamese by the CIA as payment for their support of US troops, but taken by the “Bloods” as compensation for their needless sacrifices for a country that has never given them the treatment they deserve despite the fact that they played a pivotal role in helping to make it what it is today. The ultimate goal is nothing that hasn’t been depicted before, but the controversy of the Vietnam War and the experience of combat and violence spills over into today; some of the film’s most striking messages are effectively relayed through a handful of very committed performances from the well-casted ensemble, with Delroy Lindo serving as the beating emotional heart of the film. It’s a career-defining showcase for Lindo, who, as the PTSD-stricken Trump supporter Paul, carries the most weight on his shoulders. He wrestles with personal demons and survivor’s guilt for more than half of his life because of the choices he made during his time in the service, time he and the other Bloods couldn’t avoid because, unlike the privileged white men of America, they were not given the same opportunities to dodge the draft. The disenfranchisement and aimlessness that Lindo merely alludes to through his heart-wrenching performance provides the foundation for the complicated relationship Paul shares with his estranged son, David (Jonathan Majors in the film’s other award-worthy performance), who tags along for the ride in an effort to heal old wounds and bury a deeply-lodged hatchet.
The natural chemistry Lindo shares with the other Bloods (Clarke Peters, Norm Lewis, and Isiah Whitlock, Jr.) is palpable in both the past and present, which blend into one as the screen slides from one aspect ratio to another, shifting from flashbacks of one wartorn world to the present day, in which we find ourselves fighting a different, yet altogether similar kind of war. That these changes in aspect ratios never appear as visually perceived cuts is simply another one of the ways in which Spike Lee seamlessly reminds us that then and now are cut from the same cloth, complete with the same heart-wrenching tragedies that give way to the camaraderie that is necessary to ensure that the proper names get written back into history where they belong. How the four vets are visually represented in their recollections of their commander, which are stripped of the psychedelic imagery associated with previous Vietnam War films in order to cut deeper into understanding what the Bloods’ place in Vietnam is supposed to mean (if it means anything at all), further adds to Lee’s ability to find the haunting parallels between the two time periods that comprise the film.
Spike Lee gets at so many unique and timely concepts that seem perfectly applicable to what’s going on in the world, but where he stumbles is how he goes about explicating these ideas. As a storyteller, Lee is at his best when his narratives gradually develop at a reasonably decisive pace until the tension is fully amplified by the story’s climactic boiling point, at which point there’s no turning back. Such was the nature of Do the Right Thing and, more recently, BlacKkKlansman. The same cannot entirely be said for Da 5 Bloods, which struggles to find a consistent pace and tone during its first act, in which it tries to introduce all of the central ideas at once, along with some unnecessary side stories that carry little to no weight in comparison to the central task and are ultimately resolved in schmaltzy, unsatisfying ways. Moreover, while investment in the film can be maintained throughout, too often is this investment reinforced by the unnecessary moments that serve as detriments to the sequences of dramatic consequence and just might take you out of the story, causing you to restart your investment. Every act has at least one of these moments, with the final result unfortunately falling short of the expectations of some of the genres that are molded into the Bloods’ journey through the Vietnamese jungle. The overtly patriotic and quite distracting score from Terence Blanchard (regardless of whether or not its inclusion was intended as irony) does not help the matter, with many of the best scenes occurring either in silence or alongside the soulful tracks of Marvin Gaye’s What’s Going On album.
Even when Spike Lee stumbles in the execution of his argument, what ultimately matters is the argument itself; while the film begins and ends rather heavy-handedly, telling the viewer things they are bound to already know and incorporating footage that doesn’t need to be there for the point to get across, the sacrifices that Lee chooses to detail and their ramifications for the state of our country to today give the film a degree of value at a time like this, and he is the only director who could bring these issues to the forefront in such an entertaining way. It may not be as good or accessible as his best work, but the calls to action that he has long been affiliated with echo through jungles and cities in equal measure.
What did you guys think of Da 5 Bloods? Agree? Disagree?
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Enthralled: Paranormal Diversions in Books
Mar 1, 2018
Journeys, literal or otherwise, are the theme of this young adult anthology. Appropriately enough, it was conceived as the result of a book tour.
"Giovanni’s Farewell" by [a:Claudia Gray|1192311|Claudia Gray|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1234643683p2/1192311.jpg] is a sweet, coming-of-age story of sorts. The twist is that it features a brother and sister, twins, rather than just one person. They visit Rome with a school group while dealing with major changes in their lives. There was too much background crammed into a short story, but it was interesting.
[a:Carrie Ryan|1443712|Carrie Ryan|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1343410049p2/1443712.jpg]'s "Scenic Route" is a disturbing, post-apocalyptic story set in the world of [b:The Forest of Hands and Teeth|3432478|The Forest of Hands and Teeth (The Forest of Hands and Teeth, #1)|Carrie Ryan|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1320633297s/3432478.jpg|3473471] about two young sisters trying to survive in an isolated cabin. The older sister keeps the younger one occupied with the planning of a road trip that will never happen, always hoping against hope that the girl won't realize what their reality is. How long can they stay isolated enough to survive? Bloody, frightening, and visceral.
"Red Run" by [a:Kami Garcia|2895706|Kami Garcia|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1289693388p2/2895706.jpg] is the story of a girl who has lost the only person she loves in the world, and the trip she takes to avenge his death. How do you hunt a ghost? Maybe it isn't fair, coming right after Ryan's story, but I didn't truly feel the main character's feelings.
[a:Jackson Pearce|2761947|Jackson Pearce|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1336840299p2/2761947.jpg]'s "Things About Love" is a sweet story involving a jinn researching love. I felt like I'd come into the middle of something, so I checked and found that she's written a novel, [b:As You Wish|6750586|As You Wish|Jackson Pearce|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1319175193s/6750586.jpg|6217232], in the same setting. While this story technically stands on its own, it would probably be enriched by having read As You Wish.
"Niederwald" by [a:Rachel Vincent|415967|Rachel Vincent|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1262900481p2/415967.jpg] is the first story I've read in her Soul Screamers series. Sabine, a macha (nightmare), takes a road trip with a human acquaintance and detours to Niederwald, Texas, home to the harpies. No, there's no way that could go wrong. Of course you know from the moment they hit the parking lot that it will go wrong, but at least it's an interesting sort of wrong.
[a:Melissa Marr|175855|Melissa Marr|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1192302741p2/175855.jpg]'s "Merely Mortal" feels as though it's probably set in the same world as her Wicked Lovely series.
"Facing Facts" by [a:Kelley Armstrong|7581|Kelley Armstrong|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1199068298p2/7581.jpg] is set in her Darkest Powers universe. I read the first of those books, but obviously a lot has passed since then, and there were spoilers in this story. It really centers around Chloe and Tori, with a little Derek tossed in. Tori learns something she doesn't want to know and reacts badly, running off on her own, which is dangerous. Chloe goes after her and they get into trouble. That seemed rather predictable to me, but at least the type of trouble wasn't what I expected. Tori doesn't seem to have changed since the first book, but Chloe is coming into control of her abilities.
[a:Sarah Rees Brennan|836009|Sarah Rees Brennan|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1254149255p2/836009.jpg]'s "Let’s Get this Undead Show on the Road" is about a boy band that features a vampire, Christian. He's an unusual vampire, all alone without a nest or a sire. His journey seems to be about his identity as a vampire, although the band is on tour and has another sort of journey to make, as well.
"Bridge" by [a:Jeri Smith-Ready|56019|Jeri Smith-Ready|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1204922569p2/56019.jpg] is told from a ghost's point of view, 233 days after death. It's frustrating being a ghost, because most people can't see or hear you. There are things you have to accomplish before moving on, though, that require communication with the living. Finding a "bridge" and working things out takes a lot of effort. This was a touching story, bittersweet and well-told.
[a:Kimberly Derting|2755160|Kimberly Derting|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1229976464p2/2755160.jpg]'s "Skin Contact" nearly broke me. Rafe is looking for his girlfriend. He knows where he needs to go, and he's guided by dreams. This story nearly broke me. It's told sparingly, and something feels perfectly right about it, but it hurts. According to her author biography, Rafe was introduced in her novel Desires of the Dead.
"Leaving" by [a:Ally Condie|1304470|Ally Condie|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1325882614p2/1304470.jpg] is a very literary story, about a girl left behind after her mother dies and her father leaves. She spends the story preparing to go after her father. It's hard to describe much more than that, or to have much of an opinion. It was well-written and I think I'll probably remember it for a long time.
[a:Jessica Verday|1290625|Jessica Verday|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243816082p2/1290625.jpg]'s "At The Late Night, Double Feature, Picture Show" is a darkly funny story about a girl from a family of monster hunters. She's usually the bait, but tonight she has decided to be the hunter — without backup. I'd like to read more from Verday.
"IV League" by [a:Margaret Stohl|2895707|Margaret Stohl|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1241421033p2/2895707.jpg] just didn't hit me right. It's the story of a bunch of southern vampires on a college tour, which could have been funny but wasn't written that way. The whole thing just didn't sit well with me, perhaps because the main character seemed too unrealistically out of touch for someone who obviously had access to television and the internet.
[a:Mary E. Pearson|123463|Mary E. Pearson|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1238978651p2/123463.jpg]'s "Gargouille" is the most touching love story in the collection. Just read it.
"The Third Kind" by [a:Jennifer Lynn Barnes|164187|Jennifer Lynn Barnes|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243935916p2/164187.jpg] is, on the surface, about a road trip to San Antonio. The real journey is much deeper, one of coming to understanding one's calling.
[a:Rachel Caine|15292|Rachel Caine|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1272650500p2/15292.jpg]'s Morganville is the setting for her "Automatic." I think I've read a Morganville novella, but my memory of it is dim. The Morganville Blood Bank introduces an automated withdrawal machine, essentially a soda can dispenser. Michael Glass is ordered to try it first, as a demonstration for the older, more traditional vampires, with unexpected results. His journey is one of self-knowledge. I didn't really care much about him, his journey, his girlfriend, or anything else. The setting and characters do nothing for me, but your mileage may vary.
Altogether, the anthology was worth reading. There were some low spots, but that's true of any collection. To be fair, I'm sure someone who is more enthusiastic about young adult fiction would also be more enthusiastic about the works here.
"Giovanni’s Farewell" by [a:Claudia Gray|1192311|Claudia Gray|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1234643683p2/1192311.jpg] is a sweet, coming-of-age story of sorts. The twist is that it features a brother and sister, twins, rather than just one person. They visit Rome with a school group while dealing with major changes in their lives. There was too much background crammed into a short story, but it was interesting.
[a:Carrie Ryan|1443712|Carrie Ryan|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1343410049p2/1443712.jpg]'s "Scenic Route" is a disturbing, post-apocalyptic story set in the world of [b:The Forest of Hands and Teeth|3432478|The Forest of Hands and Teeth (The Forest of Hands and Teeth, #1)|Carrie Ryan|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1320633297s/3432478.jpg|3473471] about two young sisters trying to survive in an isolated cabin. The older sister keeps the younger one occupied with the planning of a road trip that will never happen, always hoping against hope that the girl won't realize what their reality is. How long can they stay isolated enough to survive? Bloody, frightening, and visceral.
"Red Run" by [a:Kami Garcia|2895706|Kami Garcia|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1289693388p2/2895706.jpg] is the story of a girl who has lost the only person she loves in the world, and the trip she takes to avenge his death. How do you hunt a ghost? Maybe it isn't fair, coming right after Ryan's story, but I didn't truly feel the main character's feelings.
[a:Jackson Pearce|2761947|Jackson Pearce|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1336840299p2/2761947.jpg]'s "Things About Love" is a sweet story involving a jinn researching love. I felt like I'd come into the middle of something, so I checked and found that she's written a novel, [b:As You Wish|6750586|As You Wish|Jackson Pearce|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1319175193s/6750586.jpg|6217232], in the same setting. While this story technically stands on its own, it would probably be enriched by having read As You Wish.
"Niederwald" by [a:Rachel Vincent|415967|Rachel Vincent|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1262900481p2/415967.jpg] is the first story I've read in her Soul Screamers series. Sabine, a macha (nightmare), takes a road trip with a human acquaintance and detours to Niederwald, Texas, home to the harpies. No, there's no way that could go wrong. Of course you know from the moment they hit the parking lot that it will go wrong, but at least it's an interesting sort of wrong.
[a:Melissa Marr|175855|Melissa Marr|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1192302741p2/175855.jpg]'s "Merely Mortal" feels as though it's probably set in the same world as her Wicked Lovely series.
"Facing Facts" by [a:Kelley Armstrong|7581|Kelley Armstrong|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1199068298p2/7581.jpg] is set in her Darkest Powers universe. I read the first of those books, but obviously a lot has passed since then, and there were spoilers in this story. It really centers around Chloe and Tori, with a little Derek tossed in. Tori learns something she doesn't want to know and reacts badly, running off on her own, which is dangerous. Chloe goes after her and they get into trouble. That seemed rather predictable to me, but at least the type of trouble wasn't what I expected. Tori doesn't seem to have changed since the first book, but Chloe is coming into control of her abilities.
[a:Sarah Rees Brennan|836009|Sarah Rees Brennan|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1254149255p2/836009.jpg]'s "Let’s Get this Undead Show on the Road" is about a boy band that features a vampire, Christian. He's an unusual vampire, all alone without a nest or a sire. His journey seems to be about his identity as a vampire, although the band is on tour and has another sort of journey to make, as well.
"Bridge" by [a:Jeri Smith-Ready|56019|Jeri Smith-Ready|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1204922569p2/56019.jpg] is told from a ghost's point of view, 233 days after death. It's frustrating being a ghost, because most people can't see or hear you. There are things you have to accomplish before moving on, though, that require communication with the living. Finding a "bridge" and working things out takes a lot of effort. This was a touching story, bittersweet and well-told.
[a:Kimberly Derting|2755160|Kimberly Derting|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1229976464p2/2755160.jpg]'s "Skin Contact" nearly broke me. Rafe is looking for his girlfriend. He knows where he needs to go, and he's guided by dreams. This story nearly broke me. It's told sparingly, and something feels perfectly right about it, but it hurts. According to her author biography, Rafe was introduced in her novel Desires of the Dead.
"Leaving" by [a:Ally Condie|1304470|Ally Condie|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1325882614p2/1304470.jpg] is a very literary story, about a girl left behind after her mother dies and her father leaves. She spends the story preparing to go after her father. It's hard to describe much more than that, or to have much of an opinion. It was well-written and I think I'll probably remember it for a long time.
[a:Jessica Verday|1290625|Jessica Verday|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243816082p2/1290625.jpg]'s "At The Late Night, Double Feature, Picture Show" is a darkly funny story about a girl from a family of monster hunters. She's usually the bait, but tonight she has decided to be the hunter — without backup. I'd like to read more from Verday.
"IV League" by [a:Margaret Stohl|2895707|Margaret Stohl|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1241421033p2/2895707.jpg] just didn't hit me right. It's the story of a bunch of southern vampires on a college tour, which could have been funny but wasn't written that way. The whole thing just didn't sit well with me, perhaps because the main character seemed too unrealistically out of touch for someone who obviously had access to television and the internet.
[a:Mary E. Pearson|123463|Mary E. Pearson|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1238978651p2/123463.jpg]'s "Gargouille" is the most touching love story in the collection. Just read it.
"The Third Kind" by [a:Jennifer Lynn Barnes|164187|Jennifer Lynn Barnes|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243935916p2/164187.jpg] is, on the surface, about a road trip to San Antonio. The real journey is much deeper, one of coming to understanding one's calling.
[a:Rachel Caine|15292|Rachel Caine|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1272650500p2/15292.jpg]'s Morganville is the setting for her "Automatic." I think I've read a Morganville novella, but my memory of it is dim. The Morganville Blood Bank introduces an automated withdrawal machine, essentially a soda can dispenser. Michael Glass is ordered to try it first, as a demonstration for the older, more traditional vampires, with unexpected results. His journey is one of self-knowledge. I didn't really care much about him, his journey, his girlfriend, or anything else. The setting and characters do nothing for me, but your mileage may vary.
Altogether, the anthology was worth reading. There were some low spots, but that's true of any collection. To be fair, I'm sure someone who is more enthusiastic about young adult fiction would also be more enthusiastic about the works here.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Hadley (567 KP) rated Beautiful Creatures (Caster Chronicles, #1) in Books
Sep 3, 2019
Great story (1 more)
Witches and supernatural beings!
A lot of inconsistencies (1 more)
Bad writing
Given the great success of the 'Harry Potter' series, witchcraft has become a prevalent theme in most books written in the last decade. 'Beautiful Creatures' may not have a wizard school, but they do have the old town of Gatlin, South Carolina.
'Beautiful Creatures,' is a witchy novel series by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl, that brings the family of witches (among other supernatural creatures) to life: focusing on the niece, Lena, who just came to town to live with her shut-in uncle, Macon. Readers soon find out that Lena belongs to one of the oldest families in the Southern town of Gatlin.
Yet, the main character of this book isn't Lena, but a young man named Ethan Wate; a long time resident of Gatlin who attends the local high school. When we meet Ethan, we find out that he has been having dreams of a girl and a song for some time before Lena showed up, but when he overhears Lena playing the exact same song from his dream, he's sure it's her he's dreaming of.
Suddenly, the two, are able to communicate telepathically. This part is written in a way that is not believable for the reader because Ethan has been feeling that he is going crazy up until this point: hearing the song being played by Lena caused him to flee the school, as with some other things (not to give away too much), but when he can suddenly speak to Lena telepathically, it's as if this is completely normal to him. A more believable part would have had Ethan freaking out as he did before, maybe even more so.
The story takes a dramatic turn when Ethan finds an old locket out in a garden beside Macon's house. He and Lena are quickly transported to visions of a past event that happened nearby involving that very locket. For most of the book, the two are trying to find out more about this locket and who it belonged to. Each time Ethan and Lena touch the locket together, they are transported to another event in the same vision. They soon find out that the locket belonged to the loved one of a distant relative belonging to Lena's family from 1865. And as the reader continues, this locket and it's visions hold a very important key to the story.
Throughout the story, it's hinted at that Ethan may not just be a human, but may have some supernatural powers of his own, but unfortunately, this never comes to fruition. Being that this is the first of four books, and I have only read this one, the other books may bring light to this subject. Lena, on the other hand, is about to turn sixteen, and turning sixteen in her family means you will be 'claimed.' Lena explains: " 'In my family, when you turn sixteen, you're Claimed. Your fate is chosen for you, and you become Light, like Aunt Del and Reece, or you become Dark, like Ridley. Dark or Light, Black or White. There's no grey in my family. We can't choose, and we can't undo it once we're Claimed. ' " In summary, Lena's family either become good witches (or whatever supernatural being they are) or bad witches (and such). Lena, by family, is considered a Natural at this point, where she can control the weather, write on walls without her hands or a pen,and break glass at will, so they believe she is most likely to be a Light witch, and they try to reinforce this thought into her throughout the entire book.
'Beautiful Creatures' is a great story, but it has quite a few flaws. The flow of the story is good, but when you come across so many inconsistencies, it can break the connection between story and reader, such as Lena suddenly revealing that her family had a word for what they called the telepathic communication between her and Ethan:
" 'Who knew Kelting would save my life.'
I had missed something, as usual. 'What's Kelting?'
'That's what it's called, the way we're able to communicate with each other no matter where we are. Some Casters can Kelt, some can't. Ridley and I used to be able to talk to each other at school that way, but---' ." Up until this scene, the reader is left to believe that this has never happened to Lena before, so to just bring this out so suddenly leaves us to think that this was a quick add-on to give Lena and her sister, Ridley, more of a connection,. Another time is when the popular girls at the local high school have it out for Lena, Lena lets on that she can't face them, but the very next page she's telling Ethan that she has to:
" I tried to pull her up, but she pulled me back down. She shrunk back next to the tire. 'I just need a minute.'
'Are you okay?'
'Look at them. They think I'm a monster. They formed a club.'
'They can't stand outsiders, and you're the new girl. A window broke. They need someone to blame. This is just a ---'
'Witch hunt.'
I wasn't going to say that.
But you were thinking it.
I squeezed her hand and my hair stood on end.
You don't have to do this.
Yes I do. I let people like them run me out of my last school. I'm not going to let it happen again. "
The story continues with Lena fearing that she is going to go Dark, so her and Ethan come across a locket vision of a witchcraft book that may be of help called 'the Book of Moons.' This is, personally, one of my favorite parts of 'Beautiful Creatures' because, in order for them to get the book, they have to go to a specific grave and dig it up! In this very chapter, we get to see a ghost - and this is the only chapter we see a ghost - and it is done wonderfully:
" She was only partially materialized, a mix of cloudy haze and light, fading in and out as the air moved through her ghostly form, but there was no mistaking it. It was Genevieve, the woman in the painting. She had the same golden eyes and long, wavy red hair. Her hair blew gently in the wind, as if she was just a woman sitting on a bench at the bus stop, instead of an apparition sitting on a headstone in a graveyard. She was beautiful, even in her present state, and terrifying at the same time. "
The majority of the story involves Lena's family and Ethan trying everything they can to keep her from being claimed Dark. This seems to be a nod to reality, where all of us have a choice to be a good person or a bad person, but in 'Beautiful Creatures,' the authors play off of the fear that many people have: that they are just like their family, and have no control over who they are or will be. Overall, I believe readers of the 'Harry Potter' series would like this book, but would I read this again, although I gave it a very low rating? Yes, the story is that intriguing, but the writing could use quite a bit of work.
'Beautiful Creatures,' is a witchy novel series by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl, that brings the family of witches (among other supernatural creatures) to life: focusing on the niece, Lena, who just came to town to live with her shut-in uncle, Macon. Readers soon find out that Lena belongs to one of the oldest families in the Southern town of Gatlin.
Yet, the main character of this book isn't Lena, but a young man named Ethan Wate; a long time resident of Gatlin who attends the local high school. When we meet Ethan, we find out that he has been having dreams of a girl and a song for some time before Lena showed up, but when he overhears Lena playing the exact same song from his dream, he's sure it's her he's dreaming of.
Suddenly, the two, are able to communicate telepathically. This part is written in a way that is not believable for the reader because Ethan has been feeling that he is going crazy up until this point: hearing the song being played by Lena caused him to flee the school, as with some other things (not to give away too much), but when he can suddenly speak to Lena telepathically, it's as if this is completely normal to him. A more believable part would have had Ethan freaking out as he did before, maybe even more so.
The story takes a dramatic turn when Ethan finds an old locket out in a garden beside Macon's house. He and Lena are quickly transported to visions of a past event that happened nearby involving that very locket. For most of the book, the two are trying to find out more about this locket and who it belonged to. Each time Ethan and Lena touch the locket together, they are transported to another event in the same vision. They soon find out that the locket belonged to the loved one of a distant relative belonging to Lena's family from 1865. And as the reader continues, this locket and it's visions hold a very important key to the story.
Throughout the story, it's hinted at that Ethan may not just be a human, but may have some supernatural powers of his own, but unfortunately, this never comes to fruition. Being that this is the first of four books, and I have only read this one, the other books may bring light to this subject. Lena, on the other hand, is about to turn sixteen, and turning sixteen in her family means you will be 'claimed.' Lena explains: " 'In my family, when you turn sixteen, you're Claimed. Your fate is chosen for you, and you become Light, like Aunt Del and Reece, or you become Dark, like Ridley. Dark or Light, Black or White. There's no grey in my family. We can't choose, and we can't undo it once we're Claimed. ' " In summary, Lena's family either become good witches (or whatever supernatural being they are) or bad witches (and such). Lena, by family, is considered a Natural at this point, where she can control the weather, write on walls without her hands or a pen,and break glass at will, so they believe she is most likely to be a Light witch, and they try to reinforce this thought into her throughout the entire book.
'Beautiful Creatures' is a great story, but it has quite a few flaws. The flow of the story is good, but when you come across so many inconsistencies, it can break the connection between story and reader, such as Lena suddenly revealing that her family had a word for what they called the telepathic communication between her and Ethan:
" 'Who knew Kelting would save my life.'
I had missed something, as usual. 'What's Kelting?'
'That's what it's called, the way we're able to communicate with each other no matter where we are. Some Casters can Kelt, some can't. Ridley and I used to be able to talk to each other at school that way, but---' ." Up until this scene, the reader is left to believe that this has never happened to Lena before, so to just bring this out so suddenly leaves us to think that this was a quick add-on to give Lena and her sister, Ridley, more of a connection,. Another time is when the popular girls at the local high school have it out for Lena, Lena lets on that she can't face them, but the very next page she's telling Ethan that she has to:
" I tried to pull her up, but she pulled me back down. She shrunk back next to the tire. 'I just need a minute.'
'Are you okay?'
'Look at them. They think I'm a monster. They formed a club.'
'They can't stand outsiders, and you're the new girl. A window broke. They need someone to blame. This is just a ---'
'Witch hunt.'
I wasn't going to say that.
But you were thinking it.
I squeezed her hand and my hair stood on end.
You don't have to do this.
Yes I do. I let people like them run me out of my last school. I'm not going to let it happen again. "
The story continues with Lena fearing that she is going to go Dark, so her and Ethan come across a locket vision of a witchcraft book that may be of help called 'the Book of Moons.' This is, personally, one of my favorite parts of 'Beautiful Creatures' because, in order for them to get the book, they have to go to a specific grave and dig it up! In this very chapter, we get to see a ghost - and this is the only chapter we see a ghost - and it is done wonderfully:
" She was only partially materialized, a mix of cloudy haze and light, fading in and out as the air moved through her ghostly form, but there was no mistaking it. It was Genevieve, the woman in the painting. She had the same golden eyes and long, wavy red hair. Her hair blew gently in the wind, as if she was just a woman sitting on a bench at the bus stop, instead of an apparition sitting on a headstone in a graveyard. She was beautiful, even in her present state, and terrifying at the same time. "
The majority of the story involves Lena's family and Ethan trying everything they can to keep her from being claimed Dark. This seems to be a nod to reality, where all of us have a choice to be a good person or a bad person, but in 'Beautiful Creatures,' the authors play off of the fear that many people have: that they are just like their family, and have no control over who they are or will be. Overall, I believe readers of the 'Harry Potter' series would like this book, but would I read this again, although I gave it a very low rating? Yes, the story is that intriguing, but the writing could use quite a bit of work.