Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Mongol (2008) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Mongul tells the story of Temudjin, the boy who grows up and eventually becomes Genghis Khan. At the age of nine, Temudjin's father(Esugei), the khan at the time, shows him how to pick a wife. After doing so, the plan is for them to get married in five years. After Esugei is poisoned however, he dies and the Mongols he was travelling with take matters into their own hands. Pillaging and doing whatever they see fit. Temudjin becomes a slave and sets out to find his brother, Jamukha, who he feels is the only one who can help him. A few years pass. Temudjin, now a man, sets off to claim his wife. He winds up going through a lot of hardships in the process, but what doesn't kill you will only make you stronger. It is said that all Mongols are afraid of thunder, but what if they don't have a place to hide? They become one of the greatest Mongols in history and greatness comes to those who take it.
This movie is shot beautifully. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors and seems to be shot in a unique way. There are quite a few first person perspectives during battle sequences that are quite stunning. Seeing the blood splatter all over the camera is always a plus, in my eyes. The battle scenes are where the film truly shines. The way they're shot make you feel like you're in the middle of it all. The perspective on a lot of the angles during not only the battle sequences, but in the movie as a whole, are impressive in their own right. The music also lends a helping hand in making this movie incredible. While some of it wasn't to my liking, the majority of it fit the film like a glove and only enhanced what was going on in the film and what the characters were going through.
The main reason I checked out this movie was because of Tadanobu Asano. I've mentioned my admiration of his acting in the past, but I had heard that this was possibly the most physical role he ever had. That peaked my interest. Well that and the fact that he was headlining the film. He definitely doesn't disappoint in this and he only seems to impress me more with each film I see that he's involved with.
Mongol may not be as action packed as the trailer leads you to believe. There are a handful of really impressive action scenes, but there's a lot of character development in this as well. The acting is top notch and as I mentioned, the visuals will have your eyes glued to the screen the entire time. I think the last twenty minutes or so make this film worth seeing alone. While it isn't action packed for two hours straight, I like to think that if you're a fan of movies like 300 then you'll probably enjoy this. This is just a bit more story driven.
This movie is shot beautifully. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors and seems to be shot in a unique way. There are quite a few first person perspectives during battle sequences that are quite stunning. Seeing the blood splatter all over the camera is always a plus, in my eyes. The battle scenes are where the film truly shines. The way they're shot make you feel like you're in the middle of it all. The perspective on a lot of the angles during not only the battle sequences, but in the movie as a whole, are impressive in their own right. The music also lends a helping hand in making this movie incredible. While some of it wasn't to my liking, the majority of it fit the film like a glove and only enhanced what was going on in the film and what the characters were going through.
The main reason I checked out this movie was because of Tadanobu Asano. I've mentioned my admiration of his acting in the past, but I had heard that this was possibly the most physical role he ever had. That peaked my interest. Well that and the fact that he was headlining the film. He definitely doesn't disappoint in this and he only seems to impress me more with each film I see that he's involved with.
Mongol may not be as action packed as the trailer leads you to believe. There are a handful of really impressive action scenes, but there's a lot of character development in this as well. The acting is top notch and as I mentioned, the visuals will have your eyes glued to the screen the entire time. I think the last twenty minutes or so make this film worth seeing alone. While it isn't action packed for two hours straight, I like to think that if you're a fan of movies like 300 then you'll probably enjoy this. This is just a bit more story driven.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
World War I was called “The Great War” and “The War to End All Wars” as the sheer number of nations and continents involved in the conflict as well as the tremendous loss of life; was thought to be so horrific that war would become a thing of the past.
As we know this did not happen as a generation later the world was once again at war with even great death and destruction to follow. However in “1917” we see the conflict from the viewpoint of a lowly Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) who along with his friend Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message across enemy lines to warn advanced units to call of an attack due to an ambush being set by the Germans.
The duo are told that the enemy has pulled back and as such; the dreaded No Man’s Land between the opposing trenches are likely to be abandoned as well their approach to a town near their destination. With the phone lines down; the duo are the only option and they are at first shocked to learn that it would just the two of them.
As they make their way across a grim and corpse-laden battlefield, the audience as well as the two men get a look at the horrific conditions that combat took place under and how fallen individuals were left to decompose where they fell due to the entrenched and stagnant nature of Trench Warfare.
As complications mount, the two must face up to their greatest fears and challenges; driven by a sense of mission and purpose for a conflict they just want to see end so they can return home to their families.
Director Sam Mendes has crafted an Oscar Caliber film as it is gripping as it is breathtaking thanks to the amazing visuals. The contrast between the beauty of the landscape and the carnage of war has rarely been captured as well as it was in this film and the fact that Mendes had a hand in writing the story based on stories told by a relative really help to bring the full impact of the story home.
The film has some amazing sequences like sustained and extended shots where you wonder how Mendes was able to film scenes with so many things going on in one take as there is a scene near the start that looks as if it is an extended scene with no breaks or cutaways.
In the end the biggest selling point for the film is that it is a human drama at its core. While there is combat and action, they are not the focal points as much of the film centers around the young men and their conversations.
The film will stay with you after the credits roll and I consider “1917” to be one of the best films of 2019 and one not to be missed.
As we know this did not happen as a generation later the world was once again at war with even great death and destruction to follow. However in “1917” we see the conflict from the viewpoint of a lowly Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) who along with his friend Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message across enemy lines to warn advanced units to call of an attack due to an ambush being set by the Germans.
The duo are told that the enemy has pulled back and as such; the dreaded No Man’s Land between the opposing trenches are likely to be abandoned as well their approach to a town near their destination. With the phone lines down; the duo are the only option and they are at first shocked to learn that it would just the two of them.
As they make their way across a grim and corpse-laden battlefield, the audience as well as the two men get a look at the horrific conditions that combat took place under and how fallen individuals were left to decompose where they fell due to the entrenched and stagnant nature of Trench Warfare.
As complications mount, the two must face up to their greatest fears and challenges; driven by a sense of mission and purpose for a conflict they just want to see end so they can return home to their families.
Director Sam Mendes has crafted an Oscar Caliber film as it is gripping as it is breathtaking thanks to the amazing visuals. The contrast between the beauty of the landscape and the carnage of war has rarely been captured as well as it was in this film and the fact that Mendes had a hand in writing the story based on stories told by a relative really help to bring the full impact of the story home.
The film has some amazing sequences like sustained and extended shots where you wonder how Mendes was able to film scenes with so many things going on in one take as there is a scene near the start that looks as if it is an extended scene with no breaks or cutaways.
In the end the biggest selling point for the film is that it is a human drama at its core. While there is combat and action, they are not the focal points as much of the film centers around the young men and their conversations.
The film will stay with you after the credits roll and I consider “1917” to be one of the best films of 2019 and one not to be missed.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated What's Done in Darkness: A Novel in Books
Jun 24, 2021
An excellent dark and foreboding mystery
Sarabeth is seventeen when she's held captive for nearly a week and then dumped along the side of the road, bound and blindfolded. She doesn't know who took her, or where. The police doubt her story and her parents do not even report her missing from their rural Arkansas farm . Sarabeth had argued with her religious parents, who insisted she follow their strict rules and marry someone of their choosing. As she returns home and finds her family appalled by her kidnapping, she realizes something good may come from the abduction: she can escape life on the farm for good. Five years later, she's now known as Sara when investigator Nick Farrow asks her to help with the missing persons case of another girl--one incredibly similar to Sara's. Reluctantly, Sara returns home, where she must face her darkest fears (and her family) to assist in bringing this girl home.
"Sarabeth had come to think of her time on the farm as a sentence that she had to serve, one with an end date. Now it seemed like she'd have to plan an escape."
I adore Laura McHugh's writing at this point. She's an excellent writer, and this is a great mystery in her deft hands. The religious, almost cult-like aspect of Sarabeth's family seems extremely timely in this era. We see how they narrow her options, forcing her to choose between her family and her own life. Religion and darkness are major themes in this book, with darkness playing not just in the title but across the entire novel. McHugh weaves it in and out of her story--Sara being afraid of the dark, darkness and shadows lurking at every turn. And it's a dark book to read too, even if it has its light moments. Still there's hope here as well.
I loved how Sara was a complicated heroine, with a complex past and many scars. She reminded me of Joanna Schaffhausen's Ellery Hathaway in that sense--a troubled soul who must overcome her own darkness to try to save others. Her interactions with Nick were an excellent respite, and I certainly could see myself reading about these two again.
"A piece of me was still there in Arkansas, but I was gone. No one in my new life knew who I was, what had happened to me, and I wanted to keep it that way."
The book is atmospheric, sucking us into both the deep religious aspect of the Ozarks and the Arkansas countryside. The Arkansas hills seem to play their own role in the book--another character so to speak. This one kept me guessing and even as I worked out some pieces, there were plenty of twists and turns. It's a fairly quick read, but an excellent one. Certainly recommend to mystery fans and those who enjoy a character-driven read.
"Sarabeth had come to think of her time on the farm as a sentence that she had to serve, one with an end date. Now it seemed like she'd have to plan an escape."
I adore Laura McHugh's writing at this point. She's an excellent writer, and this is a great mystery in her deft hands. The religious, almost cult-like aspect of Sarabeth's family seems extremely timely in this era. We see how they narrow her options, forcing her to choose between her family and her own life. Religion and darkness are major themes in this book, with darkness playing not just in the title but across the entire novel. McHugh weaves it in and out of her story--Sara being afraid of the dark, darkness and shadows lurking at every turn. And it's a dark book to read too, even if it has its light moments. Still there's hope here as well.
I loved how Sara was a complicated heroine, with a complex past and many scars. She reminded me of Joanna Schaffhausen's Ellery Hathaway in that sense--a troubled soul who must overcome her own darkness to try to save others. Her interactions with Nick were an excellent respite, and I certainly could see myself reading about these two again.
"A piece of me was still there in Arkansas, but I was gone. No one in my new life knew who I was, what had happened to me, and I wanted to keep it that way."
The book is atmospheric, sucking us into both the deep religious aspect of the Ozarks and the Arkansas countryside. The Arkansas hills seem to play their own role in the book--another character so to speak. This one kept me guessing and even as I worked out some pieces, there were plenty of twists and turns. It's a fairly quick read, but an excellent one. Certainly recommend to mystery fans and those who enjoy a character-driven read.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Half Of What You Hear in Books
Mar 20, 2019
Captivating characters and story
Bess and Cole Warner arrive in Greyhill, Virginia from Washington, DC. Ostensibly they've come to take over the local inn from Cole's parents, Diane and Bradley, but they are also fleeing the city. Bess is leaving behind her job as a social secretary at the White House, which she left in disgrace. Greyhill, meanwhile, is a beautiful town, but also one of old money, tradition, and gossip. Bess literally lives across the stress from her in-laws, allowing Diane to pop in anytime, bringing with her her trademark mixture of judgement and condescension. Bess soon realizes that it's not easy to assimilate into Greyhill if you're deemed an "outsider." Her husband seems happy among his old friends--many of whom are more than glad to spread gossip about Bess. Her twin children are figuring out their way at the local private school--a challenge that seems harder for her daughter than son. When she's offered a chance to write an article on a local figure, Susannah Greyhill Lane, Bess jumps at the chance. She soon realizes Susannah is a bit of a kindred spirit: the town doesn't seem to like her much either. Susannah also has a lot of secrets, some of which involve Bess' in-laws. As Bess learns more about Greyhill's past, she starts to wonder exactly what she's gotten herself and her family into.
This was a really engaging, easy-to-read book that expertly captured the small town dynamic. Bess was a likeable character, struggling as an outsider in her husband's town. She's trying to put a mistake behind her at her former job, giving her even more trust issues. The novel is told mainly from Bess' point of view, but we also get snippets of town gossip, too. Ugh, having lived in such a town, I can tell you that Lewis really gets it right. I was wrapped up in the story from the beginning and felt awfully sorry for Bess--moving away from all she knew and having to deal with those hateful small town busybodies (sometimes there's nothing worse, really).
"It's like living in Stars Hollow, the charming small town on Gilmore Girls... Although honestly, so far, Greyhill feels a little more Desperate Housewives. The star character being me."
I was initially drawn to reading this book because the fake town of Greyhill, as written, is practically in my backyard. It frequently mentions my hometown of Madison (which, believe me, *never* shows up in books - it's not that big), as well as where I currently live. Even better, Lewis captures both quite well, as well as the moneyed, snobby atmosphere of Greyhill that will be intimately familiar to anyone who lives in Virginia. There's always something fun about reading about a place (or places) you know. My favorite sports team even gets a mention!
Bess is also a very realistic mother. The book does an excellent job of capturing how hard it is being a mom when your kid is going through a hard time, for example. Honestly, it does a good job of portraying parenthood in general--it's real and true throughout. I very much appreciated that. None of the sugarcoated parent/child relationships we get in some books.
This one was not completely what I expected. While it's character-driven and portrays Bess' struggle to fit in in Greyhill, it is almost a mystery at times. You can't really trust what you read and it's twisty, with some surprises thrown in. It makes for a fast, interesting read that delves into the history of Greyhill and Bess' family.
Overall, this was a really captivating book. I enjoyed the characters and the story--and the setting was a real bonus. This is the first book I've read by Krusek Lewis, but I definitely would like to read more.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher, Harper Collins, via LibraryThing in return for an unbiased review - thank you!
This was a really engaging, easy-to-read book that expertly captured the small town dynamic. Bess was a likeable character, struggling as an outsider in her husband's town. She's trying to put a mistake behind her at her former job, giving her even more trust issues. The novel is told mainly from Bess' point of view, but we also get snippets of town gossip, too. Ugh, having lived in such a town, I can tell you that Lewis really gets it right. I was wrapped up in the story from the beginning and felt awfully sorry for Bess--moving away from all she knew and having to deal with those hateful small town busybodies (sometimes there's nothing worse, really).
"It's like living in Stars Hollow, the charming small town on Gilmore Girls... Although honestly, so far, Greyhill feels a little more Desperate Housewives. The star character being me."
I was initially drawn to reading this book because the fake town of Greyhill, as written, is practically in my backyard. It frequently mentions my hometown of Madison (which, believe me, *never* shows up in books - it's not that big), as well as where I currently live. Even better, Lewis captures both quite well, as well as the moneyed, snobby atmosphere of Greyhill that will be intimately familiar to anyone who lives in Virginia. There's always something fun about reading about a place (or places) you know. My favorite sports team even gets a mention!
Bess is also a very realistic mother. The book does an excellent job of capturing how hard it is being a mom when your kid is going through a hard time, for example. Honestly, it does a good job of portraying parenthood in general--it's real and true throughout. I very much appreciated that. None of the sugarcoated parent/child relationships we get in some books.
This one was not completely what I expected. While it's character-driven and portrays Bess' struggle to fit in in Greyhill, it is almost a mystery at times. You can't really trust what you read and it's twisty, with some surprises thrown in. It makes for a fast, interesting read that delves into the history of Greyhill and Bess' family.
Overall, this was a really captivating book. I enjoyed the characters and the story--and the setting was a real bonus. This is the first book I've read by Krusek Lewis, but I definitely would like to read more.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher, Harper Collins, via LibraryThing in return for an unbiased review - thank you!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated News of the World (2020) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
Strongly Acted and Directed
Pound for pound, Tom Hanks is the best actor of this generation. From his big screen debut in SPLASH to his Oscar Nominated turn in BIG to his back-to-back Oscar wins for PHILADELPHIA and FORREST GUMP to more recent works like SULLY and THE POST, Hanks’ “everyman goodness” quality shines through the screen and makes him a screen presence that cannot be ignored.
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
GREAT, Visceral Space Scenes - Boring, Soap-Opera-ish Earth Scenes
Get to the largest screen you can find with the best sound system and check out FIRST MAN. The visceral spectacle of space travel is expertly captured and needs to be seen on the BIG screen while your chair vibrates from the sound. You, the audience, fwill eel like you are in the spaceship with Neil Armstrong on his way to the moon.
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Rob Bell's book wins on pathos and good intentions, but not on solid argumentation or exegesis. He has a heart for the lost and the suffering, which is admirable. But he has to turn the Bible into theological silly putty to make his case.
There are a few major errors in Love Wins, which leads to his making other more minor mistakes. The first error is giving precedence to certain biblical themes (to the exclusion of others) over clear and specific biblical teaching. Bell makes much of themes like restoration in Scripture, but ignores themes of final punishment. By dwelling on those themes, he can transition to reading them into texts where they don't belong without being found out by biblical illiterates, such as Jesus' claim that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on the day of judgement than cities which rejected the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of reading this in its obvious sense-- that there are degrees of punishment on the final day and those who reject direct revelation of Jesus will suffer most-- he understands Jesus to be saying that there is a great deal of hope for Sodom and Gomorrah's salvation-- that their punishment was corrective instead of destructive. Even though he doesn't get anywhere close to proving his case (certainly only God knows whether or not some in Sodom will be saved, but the story of Abraham bargaining would suggest otherwise), he seems to fall back on the emotionally-driven claim that God saving everyone is a "better story" than damning some and saving others.
On his overuse of the word "story," it is one example where Bell is obnoxiously post-modern and emergent. He uses the word "story/stories" in his short book 138 times. For a book of around 200 pages, large font, and constantly skipped lines/single words on their own lines*, that's an impressive display of post-modernism.
Another major error is that he conflates a strong exclusivism with eternal conscious punishment which has the effect that when he attacks one, he is in effect attacking the other, making his job easier. In addition, he ignores annihilationism as an alternative to eternal conscious torment, which also strengthens the emotional pull of his position, since it is contrasted with an eternal conscious punishment where God damns people for never being able to hear the name of Jesus. (note: while I am annoyed at Bell's misrepresentations of eternal conscious torment, I am myself an annihilationist)
Bell explains that God will eventually win everyone over, but it must be of their accord. However, he doesn't explain how it is that everyone will be saved of their own free will. For emotional effect, Bell criticizes the eternal conscious hell camp with having a God that would turn his back on people in hell who are repenting and turning to God. Of course, this assumes that sinners turn to God on their own instead of by His grace. Bell here appears to be a Pelagian, or else doesn't know enough about soteriology to make such distinctions (a terrifying prospect for a Pastor). In any case, this is another example where he is misrepresenting eternal conscious hell proponents (the first I mentioned was when he claimed they were all strict exclusivists), which makes his book far harder to take seriously.
One strange and interesting point that Rob Bell makes comes from making the afterlife analogous to the parable of the prodigal son. He claims that hell is not being cast out of "the party," (despite Jesus' parable about the marriage supper being like a party where people are cast out of) but being at the party but not enjoying it. "Hell is being at the party," Bell claims. The message to take from that is never go to one of Rob Bell's parties.
*Bell's book is filled with skipped lines and one word sentences sitting on their own lines. I suppose this is done for dramatic effect-- indicating places where Bell would pause if this were one of his Nooma videos. However, it tends to just look irritating and faux artsy. I mostly listened to the book on Kindle's text-to-speech feature, and I could still tell when he was doing it. Like,
You put a series of short sentences on their own lines to make a point?
Really?
You do that?
And it's repetitive?
Extremely?
And annoying?
There are a few major errors in Love Wins, which leads to his making other more minor mistakes. The first error is giving precedence to certain biblical themes (to the exclusion of others) over clear and specific biblical teaching. Bell makes much of themes like restoration in Scripture, but ignores themes of final punishment. By dwelling on those themes, he can transition to reading them into texts where they don't belong without being found out by biblical illiterates, such as Jesus' claim that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on the day of judgement than cities which rejected the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of reading this in its obvious sense-- that there are degrees of punishment on the final day and those who reject direct revelation of Jesus will suffer most-- he understands Jesus to be saying that there is a great deal of hope for Sodom and Gomorrah's salvation-- that their punishment was corrective instead of destructive. Even though he doesn't get anywhere close to proving his case (certainly only God knows whether or not some in Sodom will be saved, but the story of Abraham bargaining would suggest otherwise), he seems to fall back on the emotionally-driven claim that God saving everyone is a "better story" than damning some and saving others.
On his overuse of the word "story," it is one example where Bell is obnoxiously post-modern and emergent. He uses the word "story/stories" in his short book 138 times. For a book of around 200 pages, large font, and constantly skipped lines/single words on their own lines*, that's an impressive display of post-modernism.
Another major error is that he conflates a strong exclusivism with eternal conscious punishment which has the effect that when he attacks one, he is in effect attacking the other, making his job easier. In addition, he ignores annihilationism as an alternative to eternal conscious torment, which also strengthens the emotional pull of his position, since it is contrasted with an eternal conscious punishment where God damns people for never being able to hear the name of Jesus. (note: while I am annoyed at Bell's misrepresentations of eternal conscious torment, I am myself an annihilationist)
Bell explains that God will eventually win everyone over, but it must be of their accord. However, he doesn't explain how it is that everyone will be saved of their own free will. For emotional effect, Bell criticizes the eternal conscious hell camp with having a God that would turn his back on people in hell who are repenting and turning to God. Of course, this assumes that sinners turn to God on their own instead of by His grace. Bell here appears to be a Pelagian, or else doesn't know enough about soteriology to make such distinctions (a terrifying prospect for a Pastor). In any case, this is another example where he is misrepresenting eternal conscious hell proponents (the first I mentioned was when he claimed they were all strict exclusivists), which makes his book far harder to take seriously.
One strange and interesting point that Rob Bell makes comes from making the afterlife analogous to the parable of the prodigal son. He claims that hell is not being cast out of "the party," (despite Jesus' parable about the marriage supper being like a party where people are cast out of) but being at the party but not enjoying it. "Hell is being at the party," Bell claims. The message to take from that is never go to one of Rob Bell's parties.
*Bell's book is filled with skipped lines and one word sentences sitting on their own lines. I suppose this is done for dramatic effect-- indicating places where Bell would pause if this were one of his Nooma videos. However, it tends to just look irritating and faux artsy. I mostly listened to the book on Kindle's text-to-speech feature, and I could still tell when he was doing it. Like,
You put a series of short sentences on their own lines to make a point?
Really?
You do that?
And it's repetitive?
Extremely?
And annoying?
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Stone Mothers in Books
Jun 21, 2019
Marianne's heart drops when she realizes her husband, Sam, has bought a flat for her in the town where she grew up, Nusstead. It's in the town's former mental asylum--all prettied up and converted into beautiful apartments. But Sam doesn't know about the dark secrets the asylum holds for Marianne and her teenage boyfriend, Jesse. Marianne fled Nusstead--and Jesse--as soon as she could, making a new life for herself with daughter Honor and Sam. Jesse never really forgave her and now that she's back, he's threatening to expose their long buried secrets. Marianne is determined to keep her husband and daughter from knowing about her past. But how far must she go to protect her secrets? And what doesn't she know about the past?
This was my first Erin Kelly book; it was a different sort of thriller. First off, please note there is a trigger warning for self-harm and suicide.
The book started off slow, and honestly, this is why I have such a hard time with being able to DNF a book. I was tempted for a little while, because I couldn't get into Marianne's voice or story. But then, as the book progressed, things picked up, and I actually became pretty engrossed in the plot. The story is sort of told backward, almost. It starts with the present and Marianne and then we get some different points of view, as well as timelines in the 80s and even 50s. (I don't want to say more than that.) The portion in the 80s is still told by Marianne, but I really liked her younger voice and was caught up in what was happening by then. I was glad I had kept reading. Initially, the book had seemed a little confusing--a lot is made about the fact that something has happened in the past and yet we don't know what it is--and yes, keeping us in suspense is the point, but still. It was a little much at times.
There are some interesting twists and connections in this one. I enjoyed how it shone a spotlight on women's issues and mental health stories. It's always rather scary to see how women's mental health was treated in the past, though I suppose women's health isn't being treated with much more respect right now, is it?
The book was a tad repetitive at the end as the storyline wrapped back around to the present, but it was still pretty interesting. I wasn't always sure if I was reading a thriller, a character driven novel, or a treatment on mental health and women's issues: sometimes it seemed like the book was struggling to find itself and maybe the ending faltered a little bit because of that. Still, overall, I enjoyed this book. It became progressively more interesting, and the intersecting stories, especially the ones in the past, were very compelling. I enjoyed the focus on mental health, especially. I have Erin Kelly's He Said/She Said on my TBR shelf, and I'll definitely pick it up at some point. 3.5 stars.
This was my first Erin Kelly book; it was a different sort of thriller. First off, please note there is a trigger warning for self-harm and suicide.
The book started off slow, and honestly, this is why I have such a hard time with being able to DNF a book. I was tempted for a little while, because I couldn't get into Marianne's voice or story. But then, as the book progressed, things picked up, and I actually became pretty engrossed in the plot. The story is sort of told backward, almost. It starts with the present and Marianne and then we get some different points of view, as well as timelines in the 80s and even 50s. (I don't want to say more than that.) The portion in the 80s is still told by Marianne, but I really liked her younger voice and was caught up in what was happening by then. I was glad I had kept reading. Initially, the book had seemed a little confusing--a lot is made about the fact that something has happened in the past and yet we don't know what it is--and yes, keeping us in suspense is the point, but still. It was a little much at times.
There are some interesting twists and connections in this one. I enjoyed how it shone a spotlight on women's issues and mental health stories. It's always rather scary to see how women's mental health was treated in the past, though I suppose women's health isn't being treated with much more respect right now, is it?
The book was a tad repetitive at the end as the storyline wrapped back around to the present, but it was still pretty interesting. I wasn't always sure if I was reading a thriller, a character driven novel, or a treatment on mental health and women's issues: sometimes it seemed like the book was struggling to find itself and maybe the ending faltered a little bit because of that. Still, overall, I enjoyed this book. It became progressively more interesting, and the intersecting stories, especially the ones in the past, were very compelling. I enjoyed the focus on mental health, especially. I have Erin Kelly's He Said/She Said on my TBR shelf, and I'll definitely pick it up at some point. 3.5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Vampires Suck (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Vampires suck – but does the movie? We open on the San Salvatore Festival with the angsty Becca watching her beau, Edward Sullen, disrobe and expose his sparkly secrets- he’s a vampire! Cue the “True Blood- 40oz” toting, Mono-fang vampire to take Edward out….wait, we have to get the rest of the story! What follows is a parody of the first two movies of the Twilight Saga. Most of the characters analogous to the spoof’s target are introduced in the first 30 minutes; few of them are actually seen again throughout the movie.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated A Clockwork Orange in Books
Nov 11, 2019
Grab a moloko or hot chai and peet it with your rot while you viddy my malenky review with your glazzies, real horrorshow.
Welcome to the world of Alex, a 15 year old boy living in some unspecified country in an unspecified future time. What Alex enjoys is classical music and ultraviolence. Every night he and his gang terrorise the streets looking for any kind of criminal activity, the more violent the better. They steal, burgle, assault and rape, all for fun.
When Alex is caught he is put in prison and then rehabilitated using an experimental procedure. But what effect will this have on Alex? And will it produce the desired results of preventing the youth turning every night into a time of danger for all.
The first thing any reader notices about the book is that, told from Alex's point of view, he uses street slang throughout. This makes it clear that the young have their own culture and are quite separate from the adults in terms of outlook and thinking. It also makes the reading quite immersive, like learning a foreign language particularly as only a very few of the words are ever explained and must be learned from context. This makes for a steep learning curve at the start of the book but it is worth the effort. The use of slang terms for the violent acts also helps to soften them a little - clearly what Alex does is horrendous but as it is described using these terms it is perhaps not so graphic as it would be otherwise.
Like critics of the film, it would be unfair to focus purely on the violence. The book is divided neatly into three parts. In the first we follow Alex as he perpetrates a number of terrible crimes. The second part describes his experiences in prison and is rehabilitation. The third what happens when he returns to society.
Burgess is clearly trying to make a number of points about individuality and state control of its citizens, and a fairly heavy handed job he makes of it too. But this is a slight volume - the paperback I read ran to a mere 140 pages - so there is little time for subtlety.
I would say the first two sections of the book were the best. The third section suffers a little from being rushed - it would have been better to have more insight into the world of the 'new' Alex - and also of the story being driven by coincidence after coincidence. This really did make the book seem like a sort of dream sequence where previous characters appeared and suddenly took on new meanings. In fact what it reminded me most of was the interrogation sequence in Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man. This did detract from the story for me but not enough to do much damage to the tale. The ending is particularly strong and positive, in a book full of desperation it strikes the perfect counternote.
For anyone interested in the social side of 'science fiction' this is definitely worth reading. A morality tale for the future.
Rated: Frequent and extreme violence
Welcome to the world of Alex, a 15 year old boy living in some unspecified country in an unspecified future time. What Alex enjoys is classical music and ultraviolence. Every night he and his gang terrorise the streets looking for any kind of criminal activity, the more violent the better. They steal, burgle, assault and rape, all for fun.
When Alex is caught he is put in prison and then rehabilitated using an experimental procedure. But what effect will this have on Alex? And will it produce the desired results of preventing the youth turning every night into a time of danger for all.
The first thing any reader notices about the book is that, told from Alex's point of view, he uses street slang throughout. This makes it clear that the young have their own culture and are quite separate from the adults in terms of outlook and thinking. It also makes the reading quite immersive, like learning a foreign language particularly as only a very few of the words are ever explained and must be learned from context. This makes for a steep learning curve at the start of the book but it is worth the effort. The use of slang terms for the violent acts also helps to soften them a little - clearly what Alex does is horrendous but as it is described using these terms it is perhaps not so graphic as it would be otherwise.
Like critics of the film, it would be unfair to focus purely on the violence. The book is divided neatly into three parts. In the first we follow Alex as he perpetrates a number of terrible crimes. The second part describes his experiences in prison and is rehabilitation. The third what happens when he returns to society.
Burgess is clearly trying to make a number of points about individuality and state control of its citizens, and a fairly heavy handed job he makes of it too. But this is a slight volume - the paperback I read ran to a mere 140 pages - so there is little time for subtlety.
I would say the first two sections of the book were the best. The third section suffers a little from being rushed - it would have been better to have more insight into the world of the 'new' Alex - and also of the story being driven by coincidence after coincidence. This really did make the book seem like a sort of dream sequence where previous characters appeared and suddenly took on new meanings. In fact what it reminded me most of was the interrogation sequence in Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man. This did detract from the story for me but not enough to do much damage to the tale. The ending is particularly strong and positive, in a book full of desperation it strikes the perfect counternote.
For anyone interested in the social side of 'science fiction' this is definitely worth reading. A morality tale for the future.
Rated: Frequent and extreme violence