Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2018) in Movies
Feb 23, 2018
Come for Denzel, stay for...well...there isn't much else to stay for
Denzel Washington is one of the finest actors of his generation. A charismatic screen presence, he commands the viewer's attention whether he is performing a comedy, drama or action film. He has won 2 Oscars as a performer and has been nominated for his acting 6 other times - including (rightfully so) for his performance as the titular character in ROMAN J ISRAEL, ESQ.
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Rosemary's Baby (1968) in Movies
Jan 13, 2019
Good...Not Great
Rosemary’s Baby takes you down a rabbit hole and you have no idea what’s waiting for you at the other end. It drove me mad at times as I tried to figure out just what exactly was going on. The story follows a couple and the strange happenings that ensure when they move into a new apartment complex.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
I’m watching this movie as I write this as I typically try and do when I write reviews. The beginning is intriguing because it’s chocked full of foreshadowing. Hints are dropped here and there and you recognize almost instantly that something is off. Great job here of being subtle without being overbearing.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film succeeds with a visual jarring aspect where you never really gain your footing. You spend most of the film trying to figure out up from down and that’s in large part due to the fact that nothing really seems out of sorts…except for a few things here and there. Director Roman Polanski is like a cat owner with a laser pointer directing your attention in the right place for a bit then redirecting. Everything is under the surface waiting to boil over.
Conflict: 8
As the film progresses and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) descends into madness, you are hoping she can unravel the mystery of what exactly is happening. The conflict comes in the tension of the movements, the things moving under the surface that you know are there. Every new occurrence brings you closer to the truth and makes things more tense.
Genre: 4
This was probably a solid pass for the 1960’s, but it’s honestly pretty tame for today’s standards. I might catch some heat for not respecting the time period it was filmed in, but if we are identifying this as a horror film, then it pales in comparison to some of the horror that has kept me up at night. Also, when I compare it to a film like The Birds from the same period, it comes up short for me.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 7
Things move quickly enough, especially after the famous “dream sequence” that occurs. The pace is driven by the mystery of all the craziness unfolding. You are looking for answers along with Rosemary. A handful of scenes could have been shortened, but things never really drag on for the most part.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 4
Probably my biggest issue with the film. I won’t ruin it, but after everything that transpired, I was looking for a bit more hope for Rosemary. A few tweaks here and there may have altered my opinion of the entire film as a whole.
Overall: 74
Great cinematic storytelling isn’t quite enough to elevate Rosemary’s Baby to a classic in my opinion. Intriguing but not earth-shattering. Worth a one-time watch.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
I’m watching this movie as I write this as I typically try and do when I write reviews. The beginning is intriguing because it’s chocked full of foreshadowing. Hints are dropped here and there and you recognize almost instantly that something is off. Great job here of being subtle without being overbearing.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film succeeds with a visual jarring aspect where you never really gain your footing. You spend most of the film trying to figure out up from down and that’s in large part due to the fact that nothing really seems out of sorts…except for a few things here and there. Director Roman Polanski is like a cat owner with a laser pointer directing your attention in the right place for a bit then redirecting. Everything is under the surface waiting to boil over.
Conflict: 8
As the film progresses and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) descends into madness, you are hoping she can unravel the mystery of what exactly is happening. The conflict comes in the tension of the movements, the things moving under the surface that you know are there. Every new occurrence brings you closer to the truth and makes things more tense.
Genre: 4
This was probably a solid pass for the 1960’s, but it’s honestly pretty tame for today’s standards. I might catch some heat for not respecting the time period it was filmed in, but if we are identifying this as a horror film, then it pales in comparison to some of the horror that has kept me up at night. Also, when I compare it to a film like The Birds from the same period, it comes up short for me.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 7
Things move quickly enough, especially after the famous “dream sequence” that occurs. The pace is driven by the mystery of all the craziness unfolding. You are looking for answers along with Rosemary. A handful of scenes could have been shortened, but things never really drag on for the most part.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 4
Probably my biggest issue with the film. I won’t ruin it, but after everything that transpired, I was looking for a bit more hope for Rosemary. A few tweaks here and there may have altered my opinion of the entire film as a whole.
Overall: 74
Great cinematic storytelling isn’t quite enough to elevate Rosemary’s Baby to a classic in my opinion. Intriguing but not earth-shattering. Worth a one-time watch.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Playing Nice in Books
Sep 17, 2020
Fast-paced thriller that plays on your emotions
Pete Riley, his wife Maddie, and young son Theo have their lives upended one day when two strangers show up on their doorstep. One claims to be Theo's biological father, Miles Lambert. He tells Pete that Theo and another baby, David--whom the Lamberts have been raising--were switched at the hospital and sent home with the unsuspecting families. Suddenly Pete and Maddie have been raising "the wrong" child for the past two years. The families form a friendship based on their shock, agreeing not to upend the children's lives. But as the Lamberts prepare to the sue hospital, questions are raised, and soon Pete and Maddie start to wonder how much they can trust Miles and his wife, Lucy. What are they hiding--and how far will they go to get Theo back?
"'I'm sorry to have to tell you that Theo isn't your son. He's mine.'"
Delaney's latest is a fast and compulsive read. Told in alternating perspectives from Maddie and Pete, with some flashes to the past, the book is stressful and makes you think. What would I do in this situation? And what a terrible situation to be in. With both boys being two-years-old, they are already comfortable in their family lives. At first, each family is determined not to switch the children back. But it soon becomes clear that Theo is progressing better than David, who requires more specialized care. Is that what's affecting Miles out-sized affection for his newfound son? His constant, unannounced appearances on Pete and Maddie's doorstep? Meanwhile, Maddie feels wracked with guilt at leaving David behind. The emotions and decisions are clearly complicated.
I myself was fascinated that Delaney brought up a "baby switch" case in Charlottesville, VA at the hospital where I was born, though far earlier. If I had known about this case, I must have forgotten; I would have been in my mid-teens and probably not caring about such things at the time. Anyway, it was intriguing to hear a local reference, and it totally pushed me down the rabbit hole of researching that case (which is completely tragic).
It's hard to truly like any of these characters, even Maddie and Pete, who are initially sympathetic. Let's not even get started on Miles, who truly plays the villain well. But I appreciated that the characters and their feelings are complicated and well-portrayed here. While much of the story is character-driven, it's also a mystery, unraveling what happened when the boys were switched, and it's quite interesting.
The plot in this one moves quickly, escalating fast. I predicted the ending, but it didn't do much to diminish my enjoyment of the book. If you're looking for a different and fast-paced thriller, which also gets you thinking about emotional family dilemmas, definitely recommend. 3.5 stars.
"'I'm sorry to have to tell you that Theo isn't your son. He's mine.'"
Delaney's latest is a fast and compulsive read. Told in alternating perspectives from Maddie and Pete, with some flashes to the past, the book is stressful and makes you think. What would I do in this situation? And what a terrible situation to be in. With both boys being two-years-old, they are already comfortable in their family lives. At first, each family is determined not to switch the children back. But it soon becomes clear that Theo is progressing better than David, who requires more specialized care. Is that what's affecting Miles out-sized affection for his newfound son? His constant, unannounced appearances on Pete and Maddie's doorstep? Meanwhile, Maddie feels wracked with guilt at leaving David behind. The emotions and decisions are clearly complicated.
I myself was fascinated that Delaney brought up a "baby switch" case in Charlottesville, VA at the hospital where I was born, though far earlier. If I had known about this case, I must have forgotten; I would have been in my mid-teens and probably not caring about such things at the time. Anyway, it was intriguing to hear a local reference, and it totally pushed me down the rabbit hole of researching that case (which is completely tragic).
It's hard to truly like any of these characters, even Maddie and Pete, who are initially sympathetic. Let's not even get started on Miles, who truly plays the villain well. But I appreciated that the characters and their feelings are complicated and well-portrayed here. While much of the story is character-driven, it's also a mystery, unraveling what happened when the boys were switched, and it's quite interesting.
The plot in this one moves quickly, escalating fast. I predicted the ending, but it didn't do much to diminish my enjoyment of the book. If you're looking for a different and fast-paced thriller, which also gets you thinking about emotional family dilemmas, definitely recommend. 3.5 stars.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Rodriguez is not a good director. He isn’t an especially good writer or producer either. This is the guy responsible for four Spy Kids films, that start below average and downgrade exponentially into excruciatingly awful. What he is pretty good at is ideas, and seeing the potential of something visually arresting and exciting. That is what led to the success of Sin City, arguably his best effort to date, because he saw how the comic book creations of Frank Miller could become live action and he made it happen.
Alita: Battle Angel is a similar deal. This time Yukito Kishiro’s early 90s manga creation is the inspiration. With James Cameron as producer, and the considerable talents of Christoph Waltz, Jennifer Connelly and Mahershala Ali onboard, it would have been pretty hard for even Rodriguez to mess this up entirely. Although at times he does seem to try, mostly by doing too much and making certain sections too busy and too confusingly cross-genre, like he is frantically trying to colour within the lines whilst using every felt-tip in the pack. A habit that means every now and again something great happens, but you may have missed it in all the background noise.
Compare this film, that just falls short of qualifying for my Bad Movie Triple Bill list, to Spielberg’s superior yet similarly busy Ready Player One. Both involve high concept future realities that are very tech and AI driven. Both make extensive use of CGI and vivid colour palettes. Both are frenetic and demand an audience pays attention in order to fully appreciate the storyline. The difference is that one zig-zags back and forth in tone and momentum, and one is razor sharp in moving us from one idea to the next on a perfect learning curve towards a satisfying climax and conclusion. Guess which one is which? This is why Spielberg is Spielberg and Rodriguez is… a hack.
That said, Alita as a character and concept is charming, and you do therefore find yourself at least wanting to discover her story. The action scenes are also quite electric, and the visuals are often breath-taking. But the whole is less than the sum of the parts here, and we are left with something that can only really exist in the same box as dozens of admirable sci-fi B-movies aimed at teenagers, such as The Maze Runner, Mortal Engines and The City of Ember. It also continues to prove the point alongside Ghost in the Shell and Speed Racer that Anime / Manga into live action is a very tricky business.
There is definitely an audience out there for this movie, and I dare say at some point I will be tempted to give it another watch. What is definitely worth watching however, is how James Cameron uses this as a stepping stone to perfecting virtual humans on the big screen. I am sure everyone involved learned a lot in that respect, so all is far from lost.
Alita: Battle Angel is a similar deal. This time Yukito Kishiro’s early 90s manga creation is the inspiration. With James Cameron as producer, and the considerable talents of Christoph Waltz, Jennifer Connelly and Mahershala Ali onboard, it would have been pretty hard for even Rodriguez to mess this up entirely. Although at times he does seem to try, mostly by doing too much and making certain sections too busy and too confusingly cross-genre, like he is frantically trying to colour within the lines whilst using every felt-tip in the pack. A habit that means every now and again something great happens, but you may have missed it in all the background noise.
Compare this film, that just falls short of qualifying for my Bad Movie Triple Bill list, to Spielberg’s superior yet similarly busy Ready Player One. Both involve high concept future realities that are very tech and AI driven. Both make extensive use of CGI and vivid colour palettes. Both are frenetic and demand an audience pays attention in order to fully appreciate the storyline. The difference is that one zig-zags back and forth in tone and momentum, and one is razor sharp in moving us from one idea to the next on a perfect learning curve towards a satisfying climax and conclusion. Guess which one is which? This is why Spielberg is Spielberg and Rodriguez is… a hack.
That said, Alita as a character and concept is charming, and you do therefore find yourself at least wanting to discover her story. The action scenes are also quite electric, and the visuals are often breath-taking. But the whole is less than the sum of the parts here, and we are left with something that can only really exist in the same box as dozens of admirable sci-fi B-movies aimed at teenagers, such as The Maze Runner, Mortal Engines and The City of Ember. It also continues to prove the point alongside Ghost in the Shell and Speed Racer that Anime / Manga into live action is a very tricky business.
There is definitely an audience out there for this movie, and I dare say at some point I will be tempted to give it another watch. What is definitely worth watching however, is how James Cameron uses this as a stepping stone to perfecting virtual humans on the big screen. I am sure everyone involved learned a lot in that respect, so all is far from lost.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bad Santa 2 (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The last time we heard from Willie Soke (Billy Bob Thornton) he was recovering in jail after being shot eight times. We catch up with him today in maybe worse shape. He is out of jail but finds himself unable to hold a job and drinking to extreme excess. Th only visitor he has is a delusional, simple minded and well intentioned Thurman Merman (Brett Kelly). On the verge of ending it all he receives an invitation from his old partner, Marcus Skidmore (Tony Cox), to make a big score by robbing a Chicago charity on Christmas Eve. Wary, mostly because Marcus double crossed and shot him on their last job, Willie decides he needs the money and it’s a chance to double cross Marcus. So, he takes the job and heads to Chicago. When he arrives, he finds that Marcus has not told him everything. The job was put together by his arch nemesis. Someone who is more vile, crude and despicable than he is…his mother Sunny (Kathy Bates). Driven by greed and with the agreement that Marcus and him will cut his mother out at the end of the job Willie agrees to go forward with the robbery. The unlikely trio set out to infiltrate and rob the charity.
It is surprising to say but this sequel to 2003s Bad Santa is even more outrageous and raunchy than the original. Billy Bob Thornton is perfect in this role as a sex crazed and barely functioning alcoholic. Willie is truly the Anti-Santa Claus. But with Thurman having faith in him and in his very out of the box way of trying to do good, you can’t help but root for him to succeed. Kathy Bates performance as a crude as can be equal to Thornton’s character was fun and unexpected. The full cast of characters are all unique and all bring something to the film. The story however is very familiar and not that far off from the first film. There were definitely jokes and plot lines that followed too closely, in my opinion, to the original film. This is definitely not a film for young audiences, as most of the film is profanity laced and full of sexual situations and innuendos. But for the adult audience there are a lot of laughs to be had. For me this was a perfect film to shut off for an hour and a half and just enjoy the craziness happening on screen. It is not an overthought or over complicated film. They took things from the original film that were successful changed them up a little, not enough at some points, and made everything a little more over the top.
I wouldn’t necessarily recommend paying movie theater prices for this film but it is definitely worth a watch for the right audiences.
It is surprising to say but this sequel to 2003s Bad Santa is even more outrageous and raunchy than the original. Billy Bob Thornton is perfect in this role as a sex crazed and barely functioning alcoholic. Willie is truly the Anti-Santa Claus. But with Thurman having faith in him and in his very out of the box way of trying to do good, you can’t help but root for him to succeed. Kathy Bates performance as a crude as can be equal to Thornton’s character was fun and unexpected. The full cast of characters are all unique and all bring something to the film. The story however is very familiar and not that far off from the first film. There were definitely jokes and plot lines that followed too closely, in my opinion, to the original film. This is definitely not a film for young audiences, as most of the film is profanity laced and full of sexual situations and innuendos. But for the adult audience there are a lot of laughs to be had. For me this was a perfect film to shut off for an hour and a half and just enjoy the craziness happening on screen. It is not an overthought or over complicated film. They took things from the original film that were successful changed them up a little, not enough at some points, and made everything a little more over the top.
I wouldn’t necessarily recommend paying movie theater prices for this film but it is definitely worth a watch for the right audiences.
The Room Where It Happened
Book
As President Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton spent many of his 453 days in the room...
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Art of Hunting (The Gravedigger Chronicles #2) in Books
Nov 8, 2019
I read the first installment of the Gravedigger Chronicles, Sea Of Ghosts a little while ago and the sheer imagination really grabbed my attention. While waiting for the second book I read Campbell's first trilogy and this confirmed a grasp for creating very different, if very dark, fantasy worlds.
The first book follows the story of Thomas Granger, ex-Colonel with the elite 'Gravediggers' army unit now the owner and warden of a decrepit prison in a world that is literally drowning. Humans share the world with the intelligent and long-lived Unmer, for centuries their slaves until a band of telepaths overthrew them. In revenge the Unmer seeded the sees with thousands of small bottles - icusae - which are constantly producing poisonous 'brine', making the seas toxic and raising the sea level.
Granger sets off on a quest to find is estranged daughter Ianthe - herself an incredibly powerful but blind telepath - and so we see this strange and often brutal world, meeting Briana Marks the arrogant head of the telepaths and Ethan Maskeleyne, metaphysicist and hunter of Unmer treasure.
The book ends cataclysmically with Ianthe all but destroying the telepaths' power with her mind and setting the trapped Unmer prince Marquetta free at the same time as her father - now with magical armour and sword - arrives to rescue her himself.
The second book carried straight on from the first, detailing the aftermath of the battle and the Unmer's plans to once again rule, beginning with Marquetta's plan to marry Ianthe. Granger is naturally suspicious of his motives towards his only daughter. Marquetta also needs to eliminate another Unmer lord, Conquillas, who has been hired as an assassin by Briana Marks to kill Marquetta and his uncle. Conquillas is an Unmer rebel who has studied war and hunting until it is an art form to him. Marquetta plans to eliminate him by challenging him to a tournament which is rigged so that Conquillas cannot survive.
Learning of the plans, Granger decides to leave his daughter and travel to find Conquillas and warn him. But soon he has more to worry about as his Unmer sword literally has a mind of its own. Meanwhile Maskeleyne is on his own quest to discover why the unfortunate people who have 'drowned' in the brine seas (but still have a sort of life) are bringing him keys.
As can be seen from the brief description above this is a complex book. Although the story is told from four viewpoints - Granger, Ianthe, Maskeleyne and Briana Marks - the bulk of the story is carried by Granger (on his own quest) and Ianthe (following with the Unmer). Granger is a terrific character - he is gruff and insentimental and is not always a sympathetic character. But he is also very driven and always sees the solution to anything as a straight line, regardless of any obstacles on that path he will just bulldoze straight through them. Ianthe is more subtle as a character because she is essentially tagging along with Marquetta and apart from the marriage plot doesn't really contribute very much.
The world they inhabit is excellent. This is a different kind of fantasy world. Rather than being stuck in medieval worlds as tends to be the case, there is a lot of technology. There are guns and gas cutting torches for example. Everything seems to be very very old and anything enchanted by the Unmer is as dangerous to the innocent wielder as their target.
After the first book it is interesting to see more of the Unmer in action. Marquetta is a proud and determined prince, his uncle fills the role of scheming manipulator well and it is not clear if Marquetta follows his uncle or is merely another pawn in the play. Conquillas is also well drawn for the few scenes he is in, the consumate warrior and hunter while still being otherworldly and cold towards the humans that he deals with. Maskeleyne also comes to the fore in this book after being something of a villain in the first book in this book he is not at odds with the other main characters and so is a much more rounded person rather than a cipher to explain Unmer artifacts and move the plot along.
Yes this is a hard read; the chapters are long (there are only 8 chapters in the book) which means it is a long time between breaks in the narrative and the start does take a long long time to get going although a lot of the information is vital in setting up the rest of the book. Once it gets going however it flows well. In fact I would say the tournament at the end was a little rushed - some more insight into the early rounds would have been interesting I think - but as the main point is to get the final showdown this can be excused.
Overall, a fantastic second part and I eagerly look forward the the third installment.
Rating: Some slight swearing and crude references
The first book follows the story of Thomas Granger, ex-Colonel with the elite 'Gravediggers' army unit now the owner and warden of a decrepit prison in a world that is literally drowning. Humans share the world with the intelligent and long-lived Unmer, for centuries their slaves until a band of telepaths overthrew them. In revenge the Unmer seeded the sees with thousands of small bottles - icusae - which are constantly producing poisonous 'brine', making the seas toxic and raising the sea level.
Granger sets off on a quest to find is estranged daughter Ianthe - herself an incredibly powerful but blind telepath - and so we see this strange and often brutal world, meeting Briana Marks the arrogant head of the telepaths and Ethan Maskeleyne, metaphysicist and hunter of Unmer treasure.
The book ends cataclysmically with Ianthe all but destroying the telepaths' power with her mind and setting the trapped Unmer prince Marquetta free at the same time as her father - now with magical armour and sword - arrives to rescue her himself.
The second book carried straight on from the first, detailing the aftermath of the battle and the Unmer's plans to once again rule, beginning with Marquetta's plan to marry Ianthe. Granger is naturally suspicious of his motives towards his only daughter. Marquetta also needs to eliminate another Unmer lord, Conquillas, who has been hired as an assassin by Briana Marks to kill Marquetta and his uncle. Conquillas is an Unmer rebel who has studied war and hunting until it is an art form to him. Marquetta plans to eliminate him by challenging him to a tournament which is rigged so that Conquillas cannot survive.
Learning of the plans, Granger decides to leave his daughter and travel to find Conquillas and warn him. But soon he has more to worry about as his Unmer sword literally has a mind of its own. Meanwhile Maskeleyne is on his own quest to discover why the unfortunate people who have 'drowned' in the brine seas (but still have a sort of life) are bringing him keys.
As can be seen from the brief description above this is a complex book. Although the story is told from four viewpoints - Granger, Ianthe, Maskeleyne and Briana Marks - the bulk of the story is carried by Granger (on his own quest) and Ianthe (following with the Unmer). Granger is a terrific character - he is gruff and insentimental and is not always a sympathetic character. But he is also very driven and always sees the solution to anything as a straight line, regardless of any obstacles on that path he will just bulldoze straight through them. Ianthe is more subtle as a character because she is essentially tagging along with Marquetta and apart from the marriage plot doesn't really contribute very much.
The world they inhabit is excellent. This is a different kind of fantasy world. Rather than being stuck in medieval worlds as tends to be the case, there is a lot of technology. There are guns and gas cutting torches for example. Everything seems to be very very old and anything enchanted by the Unmer is as dangerous to the innocent wielder as their target.
After the first book it is interesting to see more of the Unmer in action. Marquetta is a proud and determined prince, his uncle fills the role of scheming manipulator well and it is not clear if Marquetta follows his uncle or is merely another pawn in the play. Conquillas is also well drawn for the few scenes he is in, the consumate warrior and hunter while still being otherworldly and cold towards the humans that he deals with. Maskeleyne also comes to the fore in this book after being something of a villain in the first book in this book he is not at odds with the other main characters and so is a much more rounded person rather than a cipher to explain Unmer artifacts and move the plot along.
Yes this is a hard read; the chapters are long (there are only 8 chapters in the book) which means it is a long time between breaks in the narrative and the start does take a long long time to get going although a lot of the information is vital in setting up the rest of the book. Once it gets going however it flows well. In fact I would say the tournament at the end was a little rushed - some more insight into the early rounds would have been interesting I think - but as the main point is to get the final showdown this can be excused.
Overall, a fantastic second part and I eagerly look forward the the third installment.
Rating: Some slight swearing and crude references
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Fate of the Furious (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Blood is thicker than Diesel.
All work and no play makes bob-the-movie-man a tardy reviewer. Still, what better way to break the fast than with “Fast and Furious 8” (aka “The Fate of the Furious”)?
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like “I’ve never seen Star Wars”). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If it’s any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe “Need for Speed“).
So I was going to be completely lost with the “plot” right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the “rabbit ears” round the word “plot” above). The story isn’t just a bit far-fetched. It’s bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his “family”, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, “Mad Max: Fury Road“). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to ‘kick some global ass’ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, it’s just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, “Oh, there he is”!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they can’t be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, “The Italian Job”) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (“Lost”) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her “sexy English” stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as “the sexy one”.
Luke Evans (“The Hobbit“), Kurt Russell (“Deepwater Horizon“) and Helen Mirren (“Eye in the Sky“) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes – done largely for comic effect – are the best part of the movie. (But “math” Jason? “MATH”?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesn’t get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If you’re willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didn’t fill my cinematic tank.
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like “I’ve never seen Star Wars”). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If it’s any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe “Need for Speed“).
So I was going to be completely lost with the “plot” right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the “rabbit ears” round the word “plot” above). The story isn’t just a bit far-fetched. It’s bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his “family”, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, “Mad Max: Fury Road“). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to ‘kick some global ass’ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, it’s just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, “Oh, there he is”!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they can’t be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, “The Italian Job”) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (“Lost”) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her “sexy English” stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as “the sexy one”.
Luke Evans (“The Hobbit“), Kurt Russell (“Deepwater Horizon“) and Helen Mirren (“Eye in the Sky“) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes – done largely for comic effect – are the best part of the movie. (But “math” Jason? “MATH”?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesn’t get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If you’re willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didn’t fill my cinematic tank.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Kyera (8 KP) rated When Dimple Met Rishi in Books
Jan 31, 2018
When Dimple Met Rishi by Sandhya Menon is a contemporary book set in San Francisco. Our two main characters, Dimple and Rishi are Indian-American and this book is such a lovely addition to the more diverse YA reads that we have been getting lately. Dimple’s parents don’t understand her love of coding and desire to do that for a living. They want her to find the Ideal Indian Husband, get married and settle down. To Dimple, that sounds like the most horrifying loss of her identity and freedom, so she’s very surprised when her parents agree to let her attend a coding camp over the summer at SFSU.
Rishi is the perfect eldest son, sure of his duties and ready to fulfill his family’s wishes. He plans to attend MIT in the coming year to major in engineering and computer science. Even though he has other interests, he knows that they are not viable career options and will have to support his family in the future. His parents send him to the same coding camp so that he can meet and get to know his (possible) future wife. It is not an official arranged marriage, but their parents each have decided that they would be good together.
Unlike Rishi, Dimple does not know of her parents' plan and is entirely freaked out when a stranger comes up to her and addresses her as his future wife. Their first interaction is hilarious and sets the stage for a fantastic book to come. Although Dimple is vehemently opposed to Rishi’s attendance as she feels tricked, she knows that it would be unkind to demand that he leave. The two end up spending more time together and become friends. Their friendship was authentic and quite adorable, even though on the surface they don’t have much in common.
Celia, Dimple’s roommate and Ashish, Rishi’s brother are really nice supporting characters. Celia gets wrapped up in the idea of fitting in and we watch as she learns to be herself. She has a number of rapid changes of opinion and emotion that aren’t entirely explained. Sometimes they seem like they come out of nowhere and there isn’t enough context or backstory to support them. That feels like one aspect of the story that could be improved.
Ashish is initially portrayed as the lazy brother who does not care what his parents want for him. He is most passionate about basketball and spends his time doing things that Rishi does not always approve of. It was nice to see their brotherly bond evolve over the course of the novel. Rishi learns to support his brother and judge him less, as a result, their relationship becomes stronger. They learn more about each other and it was nice to see a positive familial relationship depicted. Even his parents are ultimately supportive as they just want their children to be happy.
I would highly recommend this book to young adult/teen readers who enjoy diverse reads, contemporary novels, character-driven plots and coming of age stories. The characters go on a lovely journey of self-discovery and have a lot of enjoyable (and funny) scenes along the way.
Rishi is the perfect eldest son, sure of his duties and ready to fulfill his family’s wishes. He plans to attend MIT in the coming year to major in engineering and computer science. Even though he has other interests, he knows that they are not viable career options and will have to support his family in the future. His parents send him to the same coding camp so that he can meet and get to know his (possible) future wife. It is not an official arranged marriage, but their parents each have decided that they would be good together.
Unlike Rishi, Dimple does not know of her parents' plan and is entirely freaked out when a stranger comes up to her and addresses her as his future wife. Their first interaction is hilarious and sets the stage for a fantastic book to come. Although Dimple is vehemently opposed to Rishi’s attendance as she feels tricked, she knows that it would be unkind to demand that he leave. The two end up spending more time together and become friends. Their friendship was authentic and quite adorable, even though on the surface they don’t have much in common.
Celia, Dimple’s roommate and Ashish, Rishi’s brother are really nice supporting characters. Celia gets wrapped up in the idea of fitting in and we watch as she learns to be herself. She has a number of rapid changes of opinion and emotion that aren’t entirely explained. Sometimes they seem like they come out of nowhere and there isn’t enough context or backstory to support them. That feels like one aspect of the story that could be improved.
Ashish is initially portrayed as the lazy brother who does not care what his parents want for him. He is most passionate about basketball and spends his time doing things that Rishi does not always approve of. It was nice to see their brotherly bond evolve over the course of the novel. Rishi learns to support his brother and judge him less, as a result, their relationship becomes stronger. They learn more about each other and it was nice to see a positive familial relationship depicted. Even his parents are ultimately supportive as they just want their children to be happy.
I would highly recommend this book to young adult/teen readers who enjoy diverse reads, contemporary novels, character-driven plots and coming of age stories. The characters go on a lovely journey of self-discovery and have a lot of enjoyable (and funny) scenes along the way.