Search
Search results
Transistors Handbook
Education and Reference
App
Transistors Handbook - Your Transistor Guide. This app will guide you to know, choose, select and...
MLB.com At Bat
Sports and Entertainment
App
LIVE. EVERY MOMENT. Follow the 2017 MLB Postseason live through the 113th World Series with MLB.com...
Rich, detailed, but strange narrative style at times!
I was sooo keen to read this - especially after watching the TV series, which I completely loved. For the most part, I wasn't disappointed. It's such a novel way of exploring Henry VIII's relationship with Anne Boleyn, not to mention the complex divorce proceedings that preceded it - through the eyes of Thomas Cromwell, the man partially responsible for orchestrating the whole thing.
Immediately, I was struck by Hilary Mantel's remarkable ability to capture life of that time - making it seem strangely familiar, despite the fact it was hundreds of years ago. She made it all seem so real, largely due to her richness of detail, not to mention expert knowledge of the era. The little notes of humour throughout are what really bring it to life - so often, history is treated with utmost seriousness, yet Mantel is absolutely correct - I'm sure people were cracking jokes and saying silly things in the Tudor era too!
The relationships were likewise beautifully illustrated, and the death of Cromwell's wife, genuinely moving. For me, this was one of the most impressive moments of the book, as Mantel captures grief so powerfully and yet so simply.
One thing I did find strange though - the way Mantel uses pronouns throughout the book. I pondered for ages about why it jarred on me every so often, and I think it's because the 3rd person narrative is so intimate, it almost feels like a 1st person in places. Then, when she uses 'he' again, rather than 'I', it is momentarily confusing. I found myself wondering what the book would have been like had she just told it in first person through Cromwell's eyes - my personal belief is that it might have worked better.
Also, although the richness of the detail was spectacular, there were times when I felt that it held up the narrative slightly. I appreciate her desire to capture every moment of these tumultuous historic events, but at times, I did find them a wee bit boring.
However, for the most part, I was really into this book, and loved the character of Cromwell to bits. A man from a humble background, unfailingly pragmatic and clever - fabulous stuff!
Immediately, I was struck by Hilary Mantel's remarkable ability to capture life of that time - making it seem strangely familiar, despite the fact it was hundreds of years ago. She made it all seem so real, largely due to her richness of detail, not to mention expert knowledge of the era. The little notes of humour throughout are what really bring it to life - so often, history is treated with utmost seriousness, yet Mantel is absolutely correct - I'm sure people were cracking jokes and saying silly things in the Tudor era too!
The relationships were likewise beautifully illustrated, and the death of Cromwell's wife, genuinely moving. For me, this was one of the most impressive moments of the book, as Mantel captures grief so powerfully and yet so simply.
One thing I did find strange though - the way Mantel uses pronouns throughout the book. I pondered for ages about why it jarred on me every so often, and I think it's because the 3rd person narrative is so intimate, it almost feels like a 1st person in places. Then, when she uses 'he' again, rather than 'I', it is momentarily confusing. I found myself wondering what the book would have been like had she just told it in first person through Cromwell's eyes - my personal belief is that it might have worked better.
Also, although the richness of the detail was spectacular, there were times when I felt that it held up the narrative slightly. I appreciate her desire to capture every moment of these tumultuous historic events, but at times, I did find them a wee bit boring.
However, for the most part, I was really into this book, and loved the character of Cromwell to bits. A man from a humble background, unfailingly pragmatic and clever - fabulous stuff!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Papillon (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Henry “Papillon” Charriere (Charlie Hunnam) is a safecracker making his name in the Parisian underworld. But when he decides to keep some diamonds from a big score to himself his luck changes. He is framed for a murder and given a life sentence. Even worse for Papillon is that he is being shipped to the Devil’s Island penal colony in French Giana. With no chance at an appeal his only chance at freedom is to escape. On the long boat ride from France to South America he finds an unlikely ally in the form of the forger Louis Dega (Rami Malek). The slight and awkward Dega does not want to escape but rather just survive long enough to have his appeal heard. Papillon agrees to protect Dega in exchange for financing any escape plan Papillon can devise. With Dega’s financial backing Papillon now only has to figure out how to escape from prison no one has been known to escape from on an island surrounded by rivers and ocean, unforgiving jungle and guards who shoot to kill.
Papillon is based on a true story and adapted from the novels “Papillon” and “Banco” written by Charriere himself. This is the second film adaptation of these novels. The other film, also Papillon, is from 1973 stared Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. I have not seen the 1973 version but I did enjoy the story and could be worth viewing to get another directors vision.
The 2018 version is powered but a captivating story of survival and the unlikely friendship of two men thrust together in a harsh environment. Both Hunnam (King Arthur, Pacific Rim) and Malek (Mr. Robot – TV Series, Night at the Museum) give excellent performances. The rest of the cast is okay but these two stars give great performances. Danish director Michael Noer (R, Northwest) does a decent job in the telling of the story visually. There was blood in one scene that was a pink colored and did not look anything like blood and that was a little distracting. The prison seemed realistic and grimy, but also weirdly bright.
Overall I enjoyed this film. I didn’t have any expectations going in and was pleasantly surprised but interesting story. At 2 hours and 13 minutes it does seem a bit too long. This would be a film I would enjoy watching at home and not necessarily something I would spend theater money on.
Papillon is based on a true story and adapted from the novels “Papillon” and “Banco” written by Charriere himself. This is the second film adaptation of these novels. The other film, also Papillon, is from 1973 stared Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. I have not seen the 1973 version but I did enjoy the story and could be worth viewing to get another directors vision.
The 2018 version is powered but a captivating story of survival and the unlikely friendship of two men thrust together in a harsh environment. Both Hunnam (King Arthur, Pacific Rim) and Malek (Mr. Robot – TV Series, Night at the Museum) give excellent performances. The rest of the cast is okay but these two stars give great performances. Danish director Michael Noer (R, Northwest) does a decent job in the telling of the story visually. There was blood in one scene that was a pink colored and did not look anything like blood and that was a little distracting. The prison seemed realistic and grimy, but also weirdly bright.
Overall I enjoyed this film. I didn’t have any expectations going in and was pleasantly surprised but interesting story. At 2 hours and 13 minutes it does seem a bit too long. This would be a film I would enjoy watching at home and not necessarily something I would spend theater money on.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Conversations With A Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The third of these was the most powerful for me. It was Confessions of a killer: the Ted Bundy tapes. I mean… I had no idea. His name was in my imagination somewhere as a candidate for pure evil, but I had no notion of the level of media hype and drama behind and before this. Which is why I recommend this absolutely comprehensive 4 part series as the best in this dubious category I have yet to see.
With the benefit of at least some hindsight, we can see in this case the epitome of such terms as “serial killer” and “sociopath”. Looking at it in pure terms of an idea worthy of dramatic exploration, then this is it! And, interestingly, to this date, besides the Zac Efron misfire, it is a story beyond worthy of correct telling, the basis of which should be the real footage. Because nothing is more bizarre than the real man and what he not only attempted to do, but actually did.
Take the basic idea that one individual is capable of murdering 30 plus women and girls over a period of two decades… then accept that he systematically went back to the corpses and committed acts of necropholia and decapitation without ever skipping a beat in what he perceived as his true persona as a competent lawyer in his own right, and you have the stuff of true nightmare. Add to that the fact that he escaped custody twice, and defended himself in court to such a charming extent that the judge himself admitted an affinity with him, and you have the recipe for something that transcends fact and becomes myth. Don’t believe me? Watch for yourself.
Do I agree with these cases being shown as entertainment? No, I don’t. Essentially. Because they are rarely told from the victim’s point of view. We have a fascination with an unsolved mystery and grim death that is undeniably curious. The cult of personality pervades, and we should be wary of why we get involved with this stuff. As addictive TV it is undeniably going to continue. Please be careful of the line between understanding and entertainment. God forbid I would give these shows a rating, as if it were a thing worthy of encouragement. It is the most undeniable yet horrific side effect of our media growth imaginable. Watch at your peril. But watch discerningly with interest.
With the benefit of at least some hindsight, we can see in this case the epitome of such terms as “serial killer” and “sociopath”. Looking at it in pure terms of an idea worthy of dramatic exploration, then this is it! And, interestingly, to this date, besides the Zac Efron misfire, it is a story beyond worthy of correct telling, the basis of which should be the real footage. Because nothing is more bizarre than the real man and what he not only attempted to do, but actually did.
Take the basic idea that one individual is capable of murdering 30 plus women and girls over a period of two decades… then accept that he systematically went back to the corpses and committed acts of necropholia and decapitation without ever skipping a beat in what he perceived as his true persona as a competent lawyer in his own right, and you have the stuff of true nightmare. Add to that the fact that he escaped custody twice, and defended himself in court to such a charming extent that the judge himself admitted an affinity with him, and you have the recipe for something that transcends fact and becomes myth. Don’t believe me? Watch for yourself.
Do I agree with these cases being shown as entertainment? No, I don’t. Essentially. Because they are rarely told from the victim’s point of view. We have a fascination with an unsolved mystery and grim death that is undeniably curious. The cult of personality pervades, and we should be wary of why we get involved with this stuff. As addictive TV it is undeniably going to continue. Please be careful of the line between understanding and entertainment. God forbid I would give these shows a rating, as if it were a thing worthy of encouragement. It is the most undeniable yet horrific side effect of our media growth imaginable. Watch at your peril. But watch discerningly with interest.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Inside Out (2015) in Movies
Apr 1, 2020
The Most Emotionally Resonant Pixar Film
When listing the PIXAR films that have the most emotional resonance, the films I hear mentioned most often are TOY STORY 3, WALL-E and the first 20 minutes of UP. While all of those are most definitely emotionally resonant, I would argue that INSIDE OUT is the most emotionally resonant of all the Pixar films.
And not just because the main characters in the film are emotions.
Telling the tale of 11 year old Riley, who's life is upended when her family moves from Minnesota to San Fransico, INSIDE OUT follows this journey through the eyes of Riley's 5 chief emotions - Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust and Fear.
As is customary in Pixar films, the voice cast in this film is outstanding. Amy Poehler (well known as the ever-optimistic Leslie Knope in the marvelous TV Series PARKS & RECREATION) is perfectly cast as Joy. Her never ending well of optimism is perfectly placed - and never gets tiresome. As does the voice work of Lewis Black (Anger), Bill Hader (Fear) and Mindy Kahling (Disgust). They are all marvelous. But the revelation of this film for me is the voicework of Phyllis Smith (THE OFFICE) as Sadness. She brings just the right amount of weight and...well...sadness...to her character without bogging down (and bringing down) the proceedings. These 5 work together well (especially Poehler and Smith).
Special notice needs to be made of the voice work of the unique talent that is Richard Kind as the character BingBong. I will not ruin any of the surprise of this character, but I will say I could not think of any other voice for this character - he is that perfect for it.
Credit, of course, for all of this needs to be given to Director Pete Docter (currently the Chief Creative Officer at Pixar). He has shown he has the ability to really tug at the heartstrings with his previous Pixar effort, UP, and he expands on this promise in this film bringing an emotionally rich film that has many, many moments of humor spliced within. He'll be at the helm of the upcoming SOUL and I can't wait to see it.
I'm glad I revisited INSIDE OUT, it is a stronger, better film than I remembered. You'll like it - and your kids will, too!
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And not just because the main characters in the film are emotions.
Telling the tale of 11 year old Riley, who's life is upended when her family moves from Minnesota to San Fransico, INSIDE OUT follows this journey through the eyes of Riley's 5 chief emotions - Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust and Fear.
As is customary in Pixar films, the voice cast in this film is outstanding. Amy Poehler (well known as the ever-optimistic Leslie Knope in the marvelous TV Series PARKS & RECREATION) is perfectly cast as Joy. Her never ending well of optimism is perfectly placed - and never gets tiresome. As does the voice work of Lewis Black (Anger), Bill Hader (Fear) and Mindy Kahling (Disgust). They are all marvelous. But the revelation of this film for me is the voicework of Phyllis Smith (THE OFFICE) as Sadness. She brings just the right amount of weight and...well...sadness...to her character without bogging down (and bringing down) the proceedings. These 5 work together well (especially Poehler and Smith).
Special notice needs to be made of the voice work of the unique talent that is Richard Kind as the character BingBong. I will not ruin any of the surprise of this character, but I will say I could not think of any other voice for this character - he is that perfect for it.
Credit, of course, for all of this needs to be given to Director Pete Docter (currently the Chief Creative Officer at Pixar). He has shown he has the ability to really tug at the heartstrings with his previous Pixar effort, UP, and he expands on this promise in this film bringing an emotionally rich film that has many, many moments of humor spliced within. He'll be at the helm of the upcoming SOUL and I can't wait to see it.
I'm glad I revisited INSIDE OUT, it is a stronger, better film than I remembered. You'll like it - and your kids will, too!
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Hellraid: The Escape
Games
App
IMPORTANT: Due to the high-quality graphics, Hellraid: The Escape is compatible only with iPad 2 &...
NCIS: Hidden Crimes
Games
6.0
Rate It
App
Time to find your first clue, probie! Join Gibbs, Abby and other NCIS agents to investigate crimes...
I would rate this 3.5/5 stars.
I’ve never been able to find myself wanting to read Stephen King, and after a few attempts when I was younger to start one of his novels, I still couldn’t and so until this book I have never finished a Stephen King. I persevered through this one because it had been lent to me by a friend with a good review and I had watched the tv series based on it a few years ago.
The start of this novel was very slow and confused me in a few points (but I think that was intentional as our main character – Jake Epping – was also pretty confused at the same time). But because not much was happening, I kept putting the book down, distracted to do something else and really having to force myself to pick it back up. Once I managed to get to part 2, I found that I was much more interested in the story and the plot line and it wasn’t such a chore to make the time to read it. I then had a difficult time to put the book down, and most nights I was only putting it down because I was falling asleep in the middle of a sentence! I read the last quarter of the book in a day, because I just wanted to know what was going to happen and whether he was going to be able to stop the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Overall, I found the concept very interesting and not just the time travel. I found the concept of the past not wanting to be changed and actively trying to stop someone from changing it interesting, and sometimes it was quite comical the amount of things that went wrong when Jake was trying to change the past. I did, however, find the ending very disappointing. It felt like it was starting to be set up for a different ending and then at the last minute the author decided to change it completely. It just didn’t seem to fit with the set up of the last chapter or so, but I can see why it was done and that the ending that was being set up wouldn’t work in terms of not changing the past.
A very interesting read, but with a disappointing ending, but I would still recommend it!
I’ve never been able to find myself wanting to read Stephen King, and after a few attempts when I was younger to start one of his novels, I still couldn’t and so until this book I have never finished a Stephen King. I persevered through this one because it had been lent to me by a friend with a good review and I had watched the tv series based on it a few years ago.
The start of this novel was very slow and confused me in a few points (but I think that was intentional as our main character – Jake Epping – was also pretty confused at the same time). But because not much was happening, I kept putting the book down, distracted to do something else and really having to force myself to pick it back up. Once I managed to get to part 2, I found that I was much more interested in the story and the plot line and it wasn’t such a chore to make the time to read it. I then had a difficult time to put the book down, and most nights I was only putting it down because I was falling asleep in the middle of a sentence! I read the last quarter of the book in a day, because I just wanted to know what was going to happen and whether he was going to be able to stop the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Overall, I found the concept very interesting and not just the time travel. I found the concept of the past not wanting to be changed and actively trying to stop someone from changing it interesting, and sometimes it was quite comical the amount of things that went wrong when Jake was trying to change the past. I did, however, find the ending very disappointing. It felt like it was starting to be set up for a different ending and then at the last minute the author decided to change it completely. It just didn’t seem to fit with the set up of the last chapter or so, but I can see why it was done and that the ending that was being set up wouldn’t work in terms of not changing the past.
A very interesting read, but with a disappointing ending, but I would still recommend it!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nobody (2021) in Movies
Apr 27, 2021
A Fun Romp
Any fan of one of the greatest TV series of all-time, BREAKING BAD, or it’s spin-off, BETTER CALL SAUL, know the acting chops that Bob Odenkirk brings to the role of slimey, billboard lawyer Saul Goodman. His fast-talking, fast-thinking con-man is a character for the ages.
So, naturally, one would think “action star”.
But, darn it, if it doesn’t work.
Playing a retired undercover agent with a “certain set of skills”, NOBODY follows “Hutch” Mansell as he gets pulled back into using those skills when he helps a young woman who is being harassed on a bus, only to find out the thugs he went against are connected to the Russian Mob.
You can pretty much fill in the blanks from there. This film does not really tread any new ground…but…gosh…it was a fun watch.
Playing a more comedic hero than Liam Neeson in the TAKEN movies or Keanu Reeves’ JOHN WICK, Odenkirk, nonetheless, pulls off the “action hero” qualities just fine and is a winning enough presence on the screen that he holds your attention.
Christopher Lloyd (yes, Doc Brown from BACK TO THE FUTURE) is along for the ride as Odenkirk’s father, who gets pulled into the action when the Russian Mobsters decide to go after Hutch’s family and he looks like he is having a ball with this role.
The rest of the cast is pretty by-the-book (though a special shoutout needs to go to 1980’s heavy, Michael Ironside, who has a short role in this film - I would have loved to have seen more of him). The head Russian mobster is a bit over-the-top for my tastes, but the action sequences more than make up for all of this.
Credit for that must be given to Director Ilya Naishuller (HARDCORE HENRY) for he gives this film a unique look in the fight scenes while constantly having his tongue placed firmly in his cheek. I’ve seen ALOT of action films, so when a film brings something unique and fun to the screen, I sit up and notice.
And, notice I did. For NOBODY is a fun, popcorn flick. One that will be entertaining for the 92 minutes you watch.
Just don’t expect to see it during Awards season next year.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So, naturally, one would think “action star”.
But, darn it, if it doesn’t work.
Playing a retired undercover agent with a “certain set of skills”, NOBODY follows “Hutch” Mansell as he gets pulled back into using those skills when he helps a young woman who is being harassed on a bus, only to find out the thugs he went against are connected to the Russian Mob.
You can pretty much fill in the blanks from there. This film does not really tread any new ground…but…gosh…it was a fun watch.
Playing a more comedic hero than Liam Neeson in the TAKEN movies or Keanu Reeves’ JOHN WICK, Odenkirk, nonetheless, pulls off the “action hero” qualities just fine and is a winning enough presence on the screen that he holds your attention.
Christopher Lloyd (yes, Doc Brown from BACK TO THE FUTURE) is along for the ride as Odenkirk’s father, who gets pulled into the action when the Russian Mobsters decide to go after Hutch’s family and he looks like he is having a ball with this role.
The rest of the cast is pretty by-the-book (though a special shoutout needs to go to 1980’s heavy, Michael Ironside, who has a short role in this film - I would have loved to have seen more of him). The head Russian mobster is a bit over-the-top for my tastes, but the action sequences more than make up for all of this.
Credit for that must be given to Director Ilya Naishuller (HARDCORE HENRY) for he gives this film a unique look in the fight scenes while constantly having his tongue placed firmly in his cheek. I’ve seen ALOT of action films, so when a film brings something unique and fun to the screen, I sit up and notice.
And, notice I did. For NOBODY is a fun, popcorn flick. One that will be entertaining for the 92 minutes you watch.
Just don’t expect to see it during Awards season next year.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)