Search
Search results
postapocalypticplayground (27 KP) rated Crooked Kingdom in Books
Jan 9, 2018
Brekker is back and with more fiendish frivolity from the barrel. Still trying to recover from the disastrous end to the Ice Court job, little does Kaz know how deep the deception went and how much he is going to have to unravel to even begin to salvage what he started. Kaz maybe clever but he is far from the only clever man in Ketterdam. He is going to have to work even harder than ever before to try and recapture what he is owed, but with Inej captured, Nina battling an addiction with parem, Wylan tailored to the wrong face and Jesper now forced to confront his past, how easy will that be?
Crooked Kingdom is a longer book than Six of Crows yet the action takes place mainly over a matter of days, the multiple POV's stretching the tortuously epic and heart thumping twists across the pages. It still has that immense page turning captivation that was within Six of Crows, but it just lacked that extra sense of excitement along with it. They are both books of equal joy but I think book 1 just pips it, but only just. In typical Kaz Brekker style there are twists and swindles and multiple cons that would given Danny Ocean on his best day a run for his money. I love a story that keeps me questioning myself and hanging on a thread as to the outcome, and Crooked Kingdom gave this to me in spades.
I don't know what is wrong with me of late in the emotions stake, but this book again reduced me to tears, the short but intense bursts of connectivity with the characters overwhelmed me. Multiple POV's in books is a risk and I have been drowned by them in books in the past but Leigh Bardugo manages to completely avoid this. Despite every player being forced to battle for chapter time, I felt utterly part of them and their story, sharing their joys and sadness as they peaked and troughed through the words.
The only thing that I didn't enjoy about this concluding part of the duology was entirely down to the publisher. I read the paperback of this book and found that the text was just so hard to read. The margins were so tight, the text was disappearing into the gutter and hiding under my thumbs as I was reading. I hate having to bend back spines on paperbacks which made this even more of an arduous task, I get that more text on a page means fewer pages and lower print costs but this made it such a hard read at times, sort it out Indigo!! This is the first Duology that I have read and I have to say this is now my favourite book series style, all of the action and none of the filler - I hope that more writers/publishers take this forward in the future.
Would I love more from Kaz and the Dregs? Of course! However, unlike a TV show that jumps the shark I am glad that the world of Ketterdam has been left the way it has and I look forward immensely to the next original world created by Bardugo.
Crooked Kingdom is a longer book than Six of Crows yet the action takes place mainly over a matter of days, the multiple POV's stretching the tortuously epic and heart thumping twists across the pages. It still has that immense page turning captivation that was within Six of Crows, but it just lacked that extra sense of excitement along with it. They are both books of equal joy but I think book 1 just pips it, but only just. In typical Kaz Brekker style there are twists and swindles and multiple cons that would given Danny Ocean on his best day a run for his money. I love a story that keeps me questioning myself and hanging on a thread as to the outcome, and Crooked Kingdom gave this to me in spades.
I don't know what is wrong with me of late in the emotions stake, but this book again reduced me to tears, the short but intense bursts of connectivity with the characters overwhelmed me. Multiple POV's in books is a risk and I have been drowned by them in books in the past but Leigh Bardugo manages to completely avoid this. Despite every player being forced to battle for chapter time, I felt utterly part of them and their story, sharing their joys and sadness as they peaked and troughed through the words.
The only thing that I didn't enjoy about this concluding part of the duology was entirely down to the publisher. I read the paperback of this book and found that the text was just so hard to read. The margins were so tight, the text was disappearing into the gutter and hiding under my thumbs as I was reading. I hate having to bend back spines on paperbacks which made this even more of an arduous task, I get that more text on a page means fewer pages and lower print costs but this made it such a hard read at times, sort it out Indigo!! This is the first Duology that I have read and I have to say this is now my favourite book series style, all of the action and none of the filler - I hope that more writers/publishers take this forward in the future.
Would I love more from Kaz and the Dregs? Of course! However, unlike a TV show that jumps the shark I am glad that the world of Ketterdam has been left the way it has and I look forward immensely to the next original world created by Bardugo.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Supernatural - Season 12 in TV
May 25, 2017
Sam and Dean still kick ass (1 more)
Really comedic Season
Not over yet
-Don't read if you haven't caught up unless you don't mind spoilers-
Supernatural has come a long, long, so very long way since it's first pilot episode and season in 2005. If you haven't started to watch this show yet, then you're probably going to feel like there's too much. I know that I've recommended this show to dozens of my friends or friends of friends, because the show, though slower in some seasons, overall is brilliant.
So here we find ourselves in 2016/17 and Supernatural is airing it's 12th season...good luck catching up if you never started the show. After helping the darkness, God's sister, she rewards Sam and Dean by bringing Mary Winchester, their mother, back from the dead after 30+ years. This messes with her mind because she doesn't belong in this time line and she never got the chance to be a proper mother to the two men she sees standing before her in the bunker. So they give her some time and Mary ends up joining the British Men of Letters who have come to America to sort out the American Hunters. Whether that is to recruit them or destroy them.
For those of you who have read or watched Harry Potter, you know Delores Umbridge and how much you want her dead probably more than Voldemort, well the British Men of Letters are like a group of Umbridge's. You quickly begin to hate them and want them all to be wiped out.
Season 12 brings back some of the classic humour that we've come to love from this show. There's an episode where Dean is losing his memory, of not just his last but basic knowledge, so much so that Sam has to label everything from lamp, to tv, to the door, just so Dean remembers the name of them. It is so beautifully written and whilst hilarious for the majority, there's one scene where my heart sank as you realise Dean is slipping further and further into memory loss, as he stares into a mirror repeating the line 'my name....is....' and eventually responding to himself with 'i don't know' and it is such a heart aching moment because sometimes Supernatural doesn't always end perfectly and you hope that in this particular instance, that Dean gets everything back, with no little blanks.
This season, and I'm not gonna spoil it with names, sees the death of two characters who have been major to the series for a while now. That finale wasn't the best in terms of certain aspects, such as the final sequence where usually something is said that would give us something more about what's been happening, but it leaves the many fans including myself heartbroken and wishing that I never saw what I saw, because the loss of these two characters (and although many characters have died and come back, the cast and crew have confirmed that this isn't one of those cases) is going to make Sam and Dean next journey, one hell of a ride, but most certainly, one hell of a struggle.
Overall a great season full of laughter and emotion, containing one of the funniest episodes I have seen for a while, and an emotional finale that leaves you wanting more as always. I love this show and will continue to watch and recommend it to anyone interesting in monsters, demons, ghouls etc. Like I said though, good luck playing catch up.
Supernatural has come a long, long, so very long way since it's first pilot episode and season in 2005. If you haven't started to watch this show yet, then you're probably going to feel like there's too much. I know that I've recommended this show to dozens of my friends or friends of friends, because the show, though slower in some seasons, overall is brilliant.
So here we find ourselves in 2016/17 and Supernatural is airing it's 12th season...good luck catching up if you never started the show. After helping the darkness, God's sister, she rewards Sam and Dean by bringing Mary Winchester, their mother, back from the dead after 30+ years. This messes with her mind because she doesn't belong in this time line and she never got the chance to be a proper mother to the two men she sees standing before her in the bunker. So they give her some time and Mary ends up joining the British Men of Letters who have come to America to sort out the American Hunters. Whether that is to recruit them or destroy them.
For those of you who have read or watched Harry Potter, you know Delores Umbridge and how much you want her dead probably more than Voldemort, well the British Men of Letters are like a group of Umbridge's. You quickly begin to hate them and want them all to be wiped out.
Season 12 brings back some of the classic humour that we've come to love from this show. There's an episode where Dean is losing his memory, of not just his last but basic knowledge, so much so that Sam has to label everything from lamp, to tv, to the door, just so Dean remembers the name of them. It is so beautifully written and whilst hilarious for the majority, there's one scene where my heart sank as you realise Dean is slipping further and further into memory loss, as he stares into a mirror repeating the line 'my name....is....' and eventually responding to himself with 'i don't know' and it is such a heart aching moment because sometimes Supernatural doesn't always end perfectly and you hope that in this particular instance, that Dean gets everything back, with no little blanks.
This season, and I'm not gonna spoil it with names, sees the death of two characters who have been major to the series for a while now. That finale wasn't the best in terms of certain aspects, such as the final sequence where usually something is said that would give us something more about what's been happening, but it leaves the many fans including myself heartbroken and wishing that I never saw what I saw, because the loss of these two characters (and although many characters have died and come back, the cast and crew have confirmed that this isn't one of those cases) is going to make Sam and Dean next journey, one hell of a ride, but most certainly, one hell of a struggle.
Overall a great season full of laughter and emotion, containing one of the funniest episodes I have seen for a while, and an emotional finale that leaves you wanting more as always. I love this show and will continue to watch and recommend it to anyone interesting in monsters, demons, ghouls etc. Like I said though, good luck playing catch up.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 5, 2019
Good Enough - Monsters Fighting Each Other
I grew up in the 1960's watching old monster movies on Saturday afternoons on an old black and white TV in the home I grew up in. A staple of these Saturday afternoon movies was the Godzilla monster movies from Japan, featuring such great monsters as Godzilla, Mothra, Rodan and Ghidorah. So, imagine my excitement when I realized that they all would be in the same film.
And...that film...GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS...delivers the goods just fine. Sometimes you go to the movie theater looking for laughs, sometimes you are looking to cry, sometimes you are looking to have your mind stimulated with interesting thoughts and ideas and sometimes you just want to watch giant monsters battling it out over the remnants of Fenway Park in Boston.
The 3rd in the "Monarch Series" of films from Warner Brothers (following the surprisingly good 2014 GODZILLA film and the fun KONG: SKULL ISLAND movie of 2017), GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS follows Monarch as they find (and in some instances, re-awaken) giant monsters - TITANS as they are called - the Titans attempt to take over the planet from the humans (there's a "save the planet" message that is being used as the excuse)...but here comes good ol' Godzilla to save the day.
Besides the monsters, there are quite a few humans along for the ride...Kyle Chandler and Vera Famiga as a dysfunctional couple (who also happen to be experts in Monsters) who are trying to keep in check their daughter, Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS). Ken Watanbe, Sally Hawkins and Jason Strahairn reprise their roles as members of MONARCH from the 2014 GODZILLA film, 2 veritable "that person" actors, Thomas Middleditch & Aisha Hinds as other members of Monarch along with Ziya Zhang and O'Shea Jackson, Jr. - all of these actors are "serviceable" to the plot and machinations, reacting appropriately to the green screen carnage and monsters that they are pretending to react to. Only Bradley Whitford (as a Monarch Scientist) rises above things with a goofy, "almost too over the top" performance that captures the spirit of the proceedings. Add into this good ol' Tywin Lannister himself (Charles Dance) as a shadowy, non-feeling bad guy that seems to have an inexhaustible supply of men and material - kind of like Tywinn Lannister - and the "human side" of this movie is fun...enough.
But, make no mistake about it, this film - and the reason I came to see it - is to watch giant monsters fighting each other and destroying everything in their wake and this film delivers the goods. Director Micheal Dougherty ( KRAMPUS) does a "serviceable" job keeping the action moving and coherent while avoiding (for the most part) the headache-inducing "quick-cut" editing sequence. There's nothing much new or innovative in his approach to showing us monsters fighting and creating massive destruction, but he doesn't take away from the spectacle of the action on the screen so that's a good thing..
There are 2 more Godzilla films currently "on the books" to be produced - including next year's KONG vs. GODZILLA - which will keep me coming back to the IMAX in the multiplex for years to come...and that's just fine with me.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And...that film...GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS...delivers the goods just fine. Sometimes you go to the movie theater looking for laughs, sometimes you are looking to cry, sometimes you are looking to have your mind stimulated with interesting thoughts and ideas and sometimes you just want to watch giant monsters battling it out over the remnants of Fenway Park in Boston.
The 3rd in the "Monarch Series" of films from Warner Brothers (following the surprisingly good 2014 GODZILLA film and the fun KONG: SKULL ISLAND movie of 2017), GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS follows Monarch as they find (and in some instances, re-awaken) giant monsters - TITANS as they are called - the Titans attempt to take over the planet from the humans (there's a "save the planet" message that is being used as the excuse)...but here comes good ol' Godzilla to save the day.
Besides the monsters, there are quite a few humans along for the ride...Kyle Chandler and Vera Famiga as a dysfunctional couple (who also happen to be experts in Monsters) who are trying to keep in check their daughter, Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS). Ken Watanbe, Sally Hawkins and Jason Strahairn reprise their roles as members of MONARCH from the 2014 GODZILLA film, 2 veritable "that person" actors, Thomas Middleditch & Aisha Hinds as other members of Monarch along with Ziya Zhang and O'Shea Jackson, Jr. - all of these actors are "serviceable" to the plot and machinations, reacting appropriately to the green screen carnage and monsters that they are pretending to react to. Only Bradley Whitford (as a Monarch Scientist) rises above things with a goofy, "almost too over the top" performance that captures the spirit of the proceedings. Add into this good ol' Tywin Lannister himself (Charles Dance) as a shadowy, non-feeling bad guy that seems to have an inexhaustible supply of men and material - kind of like Tywinn Lannister - and the "human side" of this movie is fun...enough.
But, make no mistake about it, this film - and the reason I came to see it - is to watch giant monsters fighting each other and destroying everything in their wake and this film delivers the goods. Director Micheal Dougherty ( KRAMPUS) does a "serviceable" job keeping the action moving and coherent while avoiding (for the most part) the headache-inducing "quick-cut" editing sequence. There's nothing much new or innovative in his approach to showing us monsters fighting and creating massive destruction, but he doesn't take away from the spectacle of the action on the screen so that's a good thing..
There are 2 more Godzilla films currently "on the books" to be produced - including next year's KONG vs. GODZILLA - which will keep me coming back to the IMAX in the multiplex for years to come...and that's just fine with me.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Keep Her Safe in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Cara Burrows runs away from her family--who live in England no less--to an Arizona spa. She leaves her phone with the rental car company and, exhausted by her travels, checks into her room, only to find it occupied by a man and a teenage girl. It's obviously a mistake by the front desk, but after hearing another guest's ramblings, Cara starts to wonder if the girl she saw is murder victim Melody Chapa. Melody Chapa is incredibly famous in the U.S.--her trial garnered intense attention--and her parents are serving life sentences for her murder. Suddenly, Cara finds herself caught up in a whirlwind series of events, unsure of whom to trust. Did she really see Melody? And if so, what is going on at this spa?
The plot of this novel is pretty preposterous, so be prepared to suspend a bit of disbelief. Once you do that, <i>it's really quite enjoyable and a total whirlwind ride,</i> as you cling to Cara and try to figure things out with her. You first have to get past the fact that the woman has decided to come all the way to Arizona from the UK for her spa trip, spending, she claims, one third of her family's savings to do so. And, you'll learn, all over a insane misunderstanding/lack of communication with her family that will make you want to shake the entire clan. Good grief! However, I digress. Because, really, their lack of communication certainly works in our favor, because <i>this book may be crazy, but it's fun crazy and a wonderful sort of escape. </i>
<i>I found this to be a fascinating type of thriller.</i> I flew through the pages, constantly wondering how all the various pieces fit together. Hannah kept the entire thing going, unfurling great little twists and turns every so often to keep you hooked. It's intricately plotted and really quite well-done, even if it's all a little insane. I suspected a couple of portions, but was still really impressed at how everything went together. Cara is an interesting character--she's just bumbling and sympathetic enough that you can somehow believe that she'd stumble into a major murder mystery while on a spa holiday. Her supporting cast of characters is wide and varied: spa guests; various detectives and the FBI; those involved with Melody's case; and even a crime TV show host with a flair for the dramatic. Somehow Hannah weaves them all together successfully, for which you have to give her bonus points.
All in all, this was a slightly unbelievable novel, but compulsively readable with a thrilling mystery plot that completely hooks you. The characters all work together somehow and the novel is just a fun escape. Throw in a creepy ending that leaves you going "What?!" and this is definitely worth a read. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!) in return for unbiased review; it is available in the U.S. everywhere as of 09/19/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
The plot of this novel is pretty preposterous, so be prepared to suspend a bit of disbelief. Once you do that, <i>it's really quite enjoyable and a total whirlwind ride,</i> as you cling to Cara and try to figure things out with her. You first have to get past the fact that the woman has decided to come all the way to Arizona from the UK for her spa trip, spending, she claims, one third of her family's savings to do so. And, you'll learn, all over a insane misunderstanding/lack of communication with her family that will make you want to shake the entire clan. Good grief! However, I digress. Because, really, their lack of communication certainly works in our favor, because <i>this book may be crazy, but it's fun crazy and a wonderful sort of escape. </i>
<i>I found this to be a fascinating type of thriller.</i> I flew through the pages, constantly wondering how all the various pieces fit together. Hannah kept the entire thing going, unfurling great little twists and turns every so often to keep you hooked. It's intricately plotted and really quite well-done, even if it's all a little insane. I suspected a couple of portions, but was still really impressed at how everything went together. Cara is an interesting character--she's just bumbling and sympathetic enough that you can somehow believe that she'd stumble into a major murder mystery while on a spa holiday. Her supporting cast of characters is wide and varied: spa guests; various detectives and the FBI; those involved with Melody's case; and even a crime TV show host with a flair for the dramatic. Somehow Hannah weaves them all together successfully, for which you have to give her bonus points.
All in all, this was a slightly unbelievable novel, but compulsively readable with a thrilling mystery plot that completely hooks you. The characters all work together somehow and the novel is just a fun escape. Throw in a creepy ending that leaves you going "What?!" and this is definitely worth a read. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!) in return for unbiased review; it is available in the U.S. everywhere as of 09/19/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Twist (2021) in Movies
Feb 17, 2021
I'm not sure what grabbed me about this one to make me watch... probably the cast. When will I learn?
Twist has been fending for himself for a long time, but when he crosses paths with Dodge and Batesy, he finds himself a family on the wrong side of the law.
The trend for updating stories is one I've enjoyed in the past, but Twist felt like a weird hybrid of a film that... well, let's get into it.
It may have been based on Oliver Twist, but I genuinely don't think they should have made is such a big splash. Yes, there are similarities, but the majority of the time it just felt like it was the character names being thrown in at random to make the connection. And is it the sort of connection you need to exploit? I don't think that you've naturally got a crossover between what the story of Oliver Twist is and what is represented here.
As an ensemble it's got some pretty big names attached. Caine, Clarke and Headey are generally a good call when it comes to picking something to watch... this is definitely how I got tricked into watching Twist.
Caine was... Caine, if you know, you know. Headey was a psycho that came across so excessively over the top, maybe to give the film wider appeal in other markets? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. And Clarke at least made for some enjoyable watching.
Our other, younger cast members, were such a random group. Rafferty Law as Twist didn't give a lot, and I know that by the nature of his character origin and backstory his nature was supposed to be on a different level to the others, but I didn't find it very believable. Dodge and Batesy played by Rita Ora and Franz Drameh fit well together initially, but I quickly found Drameh to be much more skilled as Ora's acting became a little lacklustre.
Overall there's weren't many moments in Twist that worked for me because of this odd mix of cast. The biggest anomaly being Leigh Francis as the traffic warden. Had the tone of the film been different then I absolutely could have seen a place for him in it, but as it was his role stuck out like a sore thumb.
We witness a lot of freerunning (or parkour, I'm not sure which term is more appropriate here) through the film and they used this as an opportunity to fling the camera around too and put in some fancy moves. Generally I'm not a fan, and while they fit in the moment, they seemed out of place given that the rest of the camerawork felt a little more generic. I noted down that it seemed to almost be missing at some points, but I'm not sure if that's because I just sighed and ignored it or if it was only used on certain types of shots... I will not be watching it again to find out.
Twist feels like it's what you would get if you took the TV series Hustle and mixed it with a London gangster movie... but without the same level of finesse. There is definitely something in this film but I think I was severely distracted by the attempt to capitalise on a bizarre reworking of a classic tale.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/twist-movie-review.html
Twist has been fending for himself for a long time, but when he crosses paths with Dodge and Batesy, he finds himself a family on the wrong side of the law.
The trend for updating stories is one I've enjoyed in the past, but Twist felt like a weird hybrid of a film that... well, let's get into it.
It may have been based on Oliver Twist, but I genuinely don't think they should have made is such a big splash. Yes, there are similarities, but the majority of the time it just felt like it was the character names being thrown in at random to make the connection. And is it the sort of connection you need to exploit? I don't think that you've naturally got a crossover between what the story of Oliver Twist is and what is represented here.
As an ensemble it's got some pretty big names attached. Caine, Clarke and Headey are generally a good call when it comes to picking something to watch... this is definitely how I got tricked into watching Twist.
Caine was... Caine, if you know, you know. Headey was a psycho that came across so excessively over the top, maybe to give the film wider appeal in other markets? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. And Clarke at least made for some enjoyable watching.
Our other, younger cast members, were such a random group. Rafferty Law as Twist didn't give a lot, and I know that by the nature of his character origin and backstory his nature was supposed to be on a different level to the others, but I didn't find it very believable. Dodge and Batesy played by Rita Ora and Franz Drameh fit well together initially, but I quickly found Drameh to be much more skilled as Ora's acting became a little lacklustre.
Overall there's weren't many moments in Twist that worked for me because of this odd mix of cast. The biggest anomaly being Leigh Francis as the traffic warden. Had the tone of the film been different then I absolutely could have seen a place for him in it, but as it was his role stuck out like a sore thumb.
We witness a lot of freerunning (or parkour, I'm not sure which term is more appropriate here) through the film and they used this as an opportunity to fling the camera around too and put in some fancy moves. Generally I'm not a fan, and while they fit in the moment, they seemed out of place given that the rest of the camerawork felt a little more generic. I noted down that it seemed to almost be missing at some points, but I'm not sure if that's because I just sighed and ignored it or if it was only used on certain types of shots... I will not be watching it again to find out.
Twist feels like it's what you would get if you took the TV series Hustle and mixed it with a London gangster movie... but without the same level of finesse. There is definitely something in this film but I think I was severely distracted by the attempt to capitalise on a bizarre reworking of a classic tale.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/twist-movie-review.html
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Naked Lunch (1991) in Movies
Sep 28, 2019
Exterminate all rational thought.
The closing line from Roger Ebert's TV review of Naked Lunch was "I love what he did, but I hate it!"
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
ClareR (5596 KP) rated The Testaments (The Handmaid's Tale #2) in Books
Sep 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 23, 2019)
This was well worth the wait!
The Testaments is the book that many people have been waiting for since the TV series first aired (me!). It seems that everyone likes a sequel. Well, most people anyway, because for every person that I’ve seen rave about how good this book is, I’ve seen as many say that it doesn’t live up to the original. Personally, I’m glad that it’s not written in the same style as the first book. The Handmaid’s Tale was written at a different time. 1985 is a lifetime away. We were entering a time then, where women felt hope for the future - equality seemed achievable. I’m really not so sure that we feel the same way in 2019. Certain developed countries are making it more difficult for women to have abortions, more US states are making it illegal, female children are still being married to adult males in many developing countries; climate change is having a huge impact on the poorest countries and as Margaret Atwood has said, with any disasters, natural or otherwise, it’s always the women and children who suffer the worst deprivation. So Margaret Atwood had all of these things at her disposal when she wrote The Testaments. Everything that happens to the women in Gilead has happened, or is happening, somewhere in the world.
The Testaments is written from three different perspectives. I was delighted to see the return of Aunt Lydia - and she seems to have hit her stride. She’s much more sure of herself here, even though she is still having to watch her back. Gilead may be ultra-religious, but that doesn’t stop the literal back-stabbing. Aunt Lydia shows just how high the poison has spread. We see more than the subservient Aunt that she seems to be in front of The Eyes, and her backstory is fascinating.
Then there is Agnes, a child brought up in Gilead in a high profile family. We see how girls are ‘educated’ in a world where women and girls aren’t allowed to read and write. Agnes is contrasted with Daisy, a teenaged girl living in Canada, who was smuggled out of Gilead by her mother as a baby. There are obviously some pretty big differences. I don’t actually want to say too much, because I hate having my own reading experience ruined.
I loved this book. I really liked that by the end we couldn’t actually be sure whether Aunt Lydia’s records were genuine or fabricated. The symposium at the end (just as there was at the end of The Handmaid’s Tale) casts doubt on the authenticity of the papers that were found. Just like any written records found in this situation, historians have to be open minded about who could have written them. So we’re left wondering at the end whether what we’ve just read is actually what happened.
So does this deserve to be on the Booker Prize 2019 shortlist? Yes, I think it does. I believe it’s well written, I finished feeling thoroughly entertained and emotionally exhausted! I liked the open end too. Whether Atwood does anything with this open ending is up to her really, isn’t it. But I won’t be disappointed if she decides to leave the world of Gilead here. This book is a great way to end the story.
The Testaments is written from three different perspectives. I was delighted to see the return of Aunt Lydia - and she seems to have hit her stride. She’s much more sure of herself here, even though she is still having to watch her back. Gilead may be ultra-religious, but that doesn’t stop the literal back-stabbing. Aunt Lydia shows just how high the poison has spread. We see more than the subservient Aunt that she seems to be in front of The Eyes, and her backstory is fascinating.
Then there is Agnes, a child brought up in Gilead in a high profile family. We see how girls are ‘educated’ in a world where women and girls aren’t allowed to read and write. Agnes is contrasted with Daisy, a teenaged girl living in Canada, who was smuggled out of Gilead by her mother as a baby. There are obviously some pretty big differences. I don’t actually want to say too much, because I hate having my own reading experience ruined.
I loved this book. I really liked that by the end we couldn’t actually be sure whether Aunt Lydia’s records were genuine or fabricated. The symposium at the end (just as there was at the end of The Handmaid’s Tale) casts doubt on the authenticity of the papers that were found. Just like any written records found in this situation, historians have to be open minded about who could have written them. So we’re left wondering at the end whether what we’ve just read is actually what happened.
So does this deserve to be on the Booker Prize 2019 shortlist? Yes, I think it does. I believe it’s well written, I finished feeling thoroughly entertained and emotionally exhausted! I liked the open end too. Whether Atwood does anything with this open ending is up to her really, isn’t it. But I won’t be disappointed if she decides to leave the world of Gilead here. This book is a great way to end the story.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.