Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 25, 2019
Succeeds...mostly...thanks to the charm and charisma of Will Smith
Unnecessary...a money grab...what was Will Smith thinking...why would Disney do this?
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aftermath (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Is there a period piece that Keira Knightley has ever turned down? After seeing her in Colette I retrieved her from the Nutcracker trash can I'd thrown her into and actually looked forward to whatever I was going to see her in next. I sort of wish it hadn't been this film though.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
ArecRain (8 KP) rated My Dirty Detour in Books
Jan 18, 2018
This is not my normal read (mafia/gangster/etc.) But the author personally contacted me, and I have a hard time saying no. I figure if the author can go out of her way to personally ask me, I can take time to read it and give my honest opinion especially since I feel that, despite having my preferences, I can usually look beyond my biases to give it a fair review. I did not accept the author's offer of a complimentary copy, though, and instead bought it from Amazon.
First of all, whoa. I wasnt not expecting this. At first, I felt the writing was a bit long winded. The first couple pages seemed filled with endless descriptions that I didnt care about. That stopped there. Once Violet meets Rocky (within the first couple pages) it only gets better and the writer flows smoothly.
I loved Violet. I honestly related with her a lot on multiple levels from her love of organization to her wanting to try new things but not really follow through to her hesitance with Rocky. Omg their interactions are just the best! At first, Rocky is a raging d***, but that changes. Honestly, Violets interactions and dialogue with him mirrored my own and how I would have done it. She is such a strong character but different from what other typically consider strong. What others would see as giving up, I saw as the strength to walk away, from abuse she didnt need and a situation that made her unhappy. Staying didnt make her strong, walking away did. And Rocky truly redeems himself on multiple counts.
I dont want to ruin any of the story for you because it is one of the best I have read in this genre. You can truly feel the blood, sweat, and tears the author put into this novel. It is such an intense powerful read both plot wise and erotically, that I had to put it down a couple times to pull myself together. The cast of characters is amazing. The steamy scenes full of fire. And the writing is spot on. Risata is clearly a skilled writer and story teller who knows how to bring everything together to make an entertaining story. So if you are looking for a powerful yet hot and hilarious Alpha male romance featuring a strong female, look no further!
First of all, whoa. I wasnt not expecting this. At first, I felt the writing was a bit long winded. The first couple pages seemed filled with endless descriptions that I didnt care about. That stopped there. Once Violet meets Rocky (within the first couple pages) it only gets better and the writer flows smoothly.
I loved Violet. I honestly related with her a lot on multiple levels from her love of organization to her wanting to try new things but not really follow through to her hesitance with Rocky. Omg their interactions are just the best! At first, Rocky is a raging d***, but that changes. Honestly, Violets interactions and dialogue with him mirrored my own and how I would have done it. She is such a strong character but different from what other typically consider strong. What others would see as giving up, I saw as the strength to walk away, from abuse she didnt need and a situation that made her unhappy. Staying didnt make her strong, walking away did. And Rocky truly redeems himself on multiple counts.
I dont want to ruin any of the story for you because it is one of the best I have read in this genre. You can truly feel the blood, sweat, and tears the author put into this novel. It is such an intense powerful read both plot wise and erotically, that I had to put it down a couple times to pull myself together. The cast of characters is amazing. The steamy scenes full of fire. And the writing is spot on. Risata is clearly a skilled writer and story teller who knows how to bring everything together to make an entertaining story. So if you are looking for a powerful yet hot and hilarious Alpha male romance featuring a strong female, look no further!
Louise (64 KP) rated The Djinn Falls in Love & Other Stories in Books
Jul 2, 2018
*I received a copy of this book from Netgalley and the publisher in exchange for an honest review*
I have not read anything with Genies, nothing NADA! So when I saw this I jumped on the chance to read it. I love reading short story collections, you get to read from authors that you have never read from before and to see if you like their writing style. This collection of short stories is from authors all over the world and it is their take on the djinn and some of the myths,tales that they have heard whilst growing up or heard. The only author that I had heard and read beforehand was Neil Gaiman, I read ‘The Ocean at the end of the Lane’ years ago and enjoyed it so I knew there would be one possible story that I would like.
So going into this I knew nothing about Genie’s/Djinn other than Aladdin! The book has an introduction written by the editors Mahvesh Murad and Jared Shurin explaining how this book came together and the different authors involved. We also had the The Djinn Falls In Love by Hermes which is poem about a djinn which I really enjoyed.
There are 20 stories in this collection in total and are all very different, however I found the majority of them to be a little dull and wasn’t holding my attention or the story line/plot got confusing. There were however some really great ones that I loved such as ‘Spite House’ and ‘Reap’. I must admit that there will be something for everyone as there several different genres within.
‘Reap’ by Sami Shah – This was a 5 star from me. This is a story about a small team who use a drone for surveillance on a small village in Pakistan. They have to watch the residents of this village and one family has 11 children, but one day Miriam, the youngest, doesn’t return with the clan. This has supernatural elements and is pretty scary but truly wonderful and had me gripped all the way through.
This is not one of my favourite short story collection as there were just too many that didn’t hold my interest or was a little confusing. The cover though is beautiful and recommend if you want to read some different interpretations about Djinn.
I rated this 2.5 out of 5 stars
I have not read anything with Genies, nothing NADA! So when I saw this I jumped on the chance to read it. I love reading short story collections, you get to read from authors that you have never read from before and to see if you like their writing style. This collection of short stories is from authors all over the world and it is their take on the djinn and some of the myths,tales that they have heard whilst growing up or heard. The only author that I had heard and read beforehand was Neil Gaiman, I read ‘The Ocean at the end of the Lane’ years ago and enjoyed it so I knew there would be one possible story that I would like.
So going into this I knew nothing about Genie’s/Djinn other than Aladdin! The book has an introduction written by the editors Mahvesh Murad and Jared Shurin explaining how this book came together and the different authors involved. We also had the The Djinn Falls In Love by Hermes which is poem about a djinn which I really enjoyed.
There are 20 stories in this collection in total and are all very different, however I found the majority of them to be a little dull and wasn’t holding my attention or the story line/plot got confusing. There were however some really great ones that I loved such as ‘Spite House’ and ‘Reap’. I must admit that there will be something for everyone as there several different genres within.
‘Reap’ by Sami Shah – This was a 5 star from me. This is a story about a small team who use a drone for surveillance on a small village in Pakistan. They have to watch the residents of this village and one family has 11 children, but one day Miriam, the youngest, doesn’t return with the clan. This has supernatural elements and is pretty scary but truly wonderful and had me gripped all the way through.
This is not one of my favourite short story collection as there were just too many that didn’t hold my interest or was a little confusing. The cover though is beautiful and recommend if you want to read some different interpretations about Djinn.
I rated this 2.5 out of 5 stars
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Marlowe Papers in Books
Dec 21, 2018
I thought this was a really interesting idea; a 'novel (if that's even the right word!) written entirely in Blank Verse. Obviously the subject matter was also one that interested me.
The book apparently formed part of Barber's PhD and her central theory is the one that playwright and intelligencer Christopher Marlowe did not in fact die in Deptford as supposed. Subsidiary to this is the idea that William Shakespeare was just a front man for a whole host of plays written by an exiled Marlowe. Despite appearing in a production of Doctor Faustus as a teenager, I will admit that I am not terribly au fait with the details of Marlowe's life but having read Barber's work and the notes at the back, I can see there is some mileage in the idea of him having not actually died as reported; certainly there appears something fishy going on. I'm less convinced by the idea that someone else 'must' have written Shakespeare's plays. If Marlowe could be successful as the son of a Kentish Cobbler, why can't we believe the same of the son of a Stratford glover? Be that as it may, that is the stance Barber has chosen to take and I can accept what she gives me for the purpose of her 'entertainment' of 'what might have happened'.
As to the book itself, it's about 400 pages long and I think it took about 100 of those before I felt I was really getting into it. I'm not sure if it was adjusting to the style of the work (I read some plays in Blank Verse, but I'm not a great poetry lover) or if the early section was more chronologically disjointed and more tricky to get into the swing of the action? I am glad I persevered though, as I did end up enjoying it. On the other hand, I can more than understand that some people won't find it their cup of tea at all - I don't think there is any other work, at least not in English, that is written in quite the same way. It certainly must have been a labour of love getting exactly the right words to make all that Iambic Pentameter work, so hats off to Barber on this score.
Now I feel like seeing if I can find a decent biography of Marlowe, and surely that can only be a good thing.
The book apparently formed part of Barber's PhD and her central theory is the one that playwright and intelligencer Christopher Marlowe did not in fact die in Deptford as supposed. Subsidiary to this is the idea that William Shakespeare was just a front man for a whole host of plays written by an exiled Marlowe. Despite appearing in a production of Doctor Faustus as a teenager, I will admit that I am not terribly au fait with the details of Marlowe's life but having read Barber's work and the notes at the back, I can see there is some mileage in the idea of him having not actually died as reported; certainly there appears something fishy going on. I'm less convinced by the idea that someone else 'must' have written Shakespeare's plays. If Marlowe could be successful as the son of a Kentish Cobbler, why can't we believe the same of the son of a Stratford glover? Be that as it may, that is the stance Barber has chosen to take and I can accept what she gives me for the purpose of her 'entertainment' of 'what might have happened'.
As to the book itself, it's about 400 pages long and I think it took about 100 of those before I felt I was really getting into it. I'm not sure if it was adjusting to the style of the work (I read some plays in Blank Verse, but I'm not a great poetry lover) or if the early section was more chronologically disjointed and more tricky to get into the swing of the action? I am glad I persevered though, as I did end up enjoying it. On the other hand, I can more than understand that some people won't find it their cup of tea at all - I don't think there is any other work, at least not in English, that is written in quite the same way. It certainly must have been a labour of love getting exactly the right words to make all that Iambic Pentameter work, so hats off to Barber on this score.
Now I feel like seeing if I can find a decent biography of Marlowe, and surely that can only be a good thing.
Fred (860 KP) rated Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) in Movies
Jan 22, 2019
Spielberg's best
When people think of Spielberg's best, they'll either jump straight to Jaws or Schindler's List. While both are fantastic movies, there is one movie in my opinion, that is often forgotten & is truly his best. Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I first saw this as a kid, when I forced my parents to take me to see it on their movie night, while my 5 brothers were stuck at home being babysat by my Grandma.
Anyway, let's talk about the movie. From the beginning scene with the planes in the desert, you know you're in for something special. At the time I saw the movie, I was big into UFOs. I knew all the stories, all the alien types, all the photos. I even knew who Dr. Allen Hynek, who ran Project Blue Book, was & recognized him at the end of the film, where he makes a cameo. My dad, who was not into sci-fi & didn't believe in the supernatural, told me many times that this was one of his favorite films because "It could happen".
And that's part of the movie's appeal. It could happen. But it's Spielberg's direction of the actors that makes it seem even more real. The way Roy's family acts when all together is all too real & much like real people would act. Everyone in the film is great. If I had only one complaint about the movie, it would be that Roy's wife leaves him too quickly. It's almost like she doesn't even like him & is so quick to give up on him. In any case, she is played very well by Teri Garr. We meet a lot of strange people on the way too, who also have seen these UFOs, like the whistling guy, who saw Bigfoot once too. And he's believable. Again, it all seems like it could happen.
Then there are the special effects. Done by ILM, who had no peers at the time. The UFOs look like they're there & the Mothership at the end still drops my jaw. Throw in John Williams memorable score & you got movie magic. Whenever I think of this film, I get in the mood to watch it right away. And I usually do. I probably have seen this movie over 50 times & will watch it again & again. Close Encounters is Spielberg's best & my third favorite of all time
Anyway, let's talk about the movie. From the beginning scene with the planes in the desert, you know you're in for something special. At the time I saw the movie, I was big into UFOs. I knew all the stories, all the alien types, all the photos. I even knew who Dr. Allen Hynek, who ran Project Blue Book, was & recognized him at the end of the film, where he makes a cameo. My dad, who was not into sci-fi & didn't believe in the supernatural, told me many times that this was one of his favorite films because "It could happen".
And that's part of the movie's appeal. It could happen. But it's Spielberg's direction of the actors that makes it seem even more real. The way Roy's family acts when all together is all too real & much like real people would act. Everyone in the film is great. If I had only one complaint about the movie, it would be that Roy's wife leaves him too quickly. It's almost like she doesn't even like him & is so quick to give up on him. In any case, she is played very well by Teri Garr. We meet a lot of strange people on the way too, who also have seen these UFOs, like the whistling guy, who saw Bigfoot once too. And he's believable. Again, it all seems like it could happen.
Then there are the special effects. Done by ILM, who had no peers at the time. The UFOs look like they're there & the Mothership at the end still drops my jaw. Throw in John Williams memorable score & you got movie magic. Whenever I think of this film, I get in the mood to watch it right away. And I usually do. I probably have seen this movie over 50 times & will watch it again & again. Close Encounters is Spielberg's best & my third favorite of all time
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Inmate #1: The Rise of Danny Trejo (2020) in Movies
Jun 30, 2020
I don't think there's anyone who would be able to say "Danny who?" unless they were living in a cave somewhere. Whether it's Machete, Navajas in Desperado or the voice of Jaguar in Rick and Morty, there's something for everyone to click with out there. (3-Headed Shark Attack for the classiest of you out there.)
There's always something amazing around Danny Trejo, I love seeing him pop up in films. It wasn't until watching this that I realised just how many roles he's done and has coming up, it's even gone up a significant amount since they put this together. It also made me realise that I have a lot of things I need to watch. I'm at a measly 5% watched according to Letterboxd.
With several documentaries I've watched recently there are fundamental pieces that they've tweaked to try and change things up, Inmate #1 has kept to quite a traditional setup and it works tremendously well. We have interviews, old video footage of locations and sets and photos from Danny's life, the archival footage gives you a very clear image of what is being narrated and it helps to take you through the timeline.
The only slight drawback to the interview portion is the sheer variety of people that they include. Trejo's children, friends and colleagues have recurring parts and a significant portion is them recounting stories. It's all interesting content, but it's not always personally relevant to them and that seemed a little odd. It was really only a small point on the whole thing but I wouldn't have said no to more Trejo moments.
Seeing Danny Trejo's personality come across is wonderful to behold, he has an addictive humour to him and seeing him laugh at memories will make you smile back. But you also get to see remorse and emotion in such an honest way. The Kermit story broke me.
Overall, the documentary handles change in tone and situations well. All the transitions you see are smooth and there was no jarring change at any point which meant I was engaged for the whole 1hr and 47 minutes. It's compiled wonderfully and the mix between old and new content is balanced, the fact that it brings you full circle and shows you how hard he works on his career and his community is a joy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/inmate-1-rise-of-danny-trejo-movie.html
There's always something amazing around Danny Trejo, I love seeing him pop up in films. It wasn't until watching this that I realised just how many roles he's done and has coming up, it's even gone up a significant amount since they put this together. It also made me realise that I have a lot of things I need to watch. I'm at a measly 5% watched according to Letterboxd.
With several documentaries I've watched recently there are fundamental pieces that they've tweaked to try and change things up, Inmate #1 has kept to quite a traditional setup and it works tremendously well. We have interviews, old video footage of locations and sets and photos from Danny's life, the archival footage gives you a very clear image of what is being narrated and it helps to take you through the timeline.
The only slight drawback to the interview portion is the sheer variety of people that they include. Trejo's children, friends and colleagues have recurring parts and a significant portion is them recounting stories. It's all interesting content, but it's not always personally relevant to them and that seemed a little odd. It was really only a small point on the whole thing but I wouldn't have said no to more Trejo moments.
Seeing Danny Trejo's personality come across is wonderful to behold, he has an addictive humour to him and seeing him laugh at memories will make you smile back. But you also get to see remorse and emotion in such an honest way. The Kermit story broke me.
Overall, the documentary handles change in tone and situations well. All the transitions you see are smooth and there was no jarring change at any point which meant I was engaged for the whole 1hr and 47 minutes. It's compiled wonderfully and the mix between old and new content is balanced, the fact that it brings you full circle and shows you how hard he works on his career and his community is a joy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/inmate-1-rise-of-danny-trejo-movie.html
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Imposter in Books
Mar 11, 2021
A confusing mess of a thriller
Attorney Sibley Sawyer's life goes down in flames when her drinking finally catches up with her. Forced to take a leave of absence from her firm, Sibley seeks the perceived source of her problems: her mother, Deborah. The two have been estranged since Sibley fled home in her late teens. But when Sibley returns to the Midwestern farm where she grew up, she realizes her mother is acting odd. Perhaps it's due to her recent attack, when an intruder brutally beat her. Either way, as Sidney tries to make peace with Deborah, she starts to recall why she left in the first place--and uncovers even more shocking secrets about long ago happenings on the farm.
Well, the synopsis for this one sounded interesting, but this was a hot mess for me. I did not like much of this book at all, but kept reading because I needed to find out what happened. I think I was as confused as these hapless and unlikable characters, honestly. Deborah is clearly disoriented and bewildered throughout the book--alone and terrified on the farm--and it's nearly impossible to muddle through what's going on in her brain. Sidney is drinking heavily, and while I have complete sympathy for the disease of alcoholism, having lost a beloved relative to it, I'm tired of authors using the trope to give us an unreliable narrator with no real effort for a backstory or anything else.
Neither character comes across as particularly sympathetic, and I got rather tired of reading a book with my brow perpetually furrowed. It was not exciting, just confusing. The plot is truly bizarre, with some weird twists, but I felt I was reading to work out a bad puzzle. Maybe all this befuddlement would have been worth it if the probable "bad guy" had not been telegraphed from a mile away, but I had the outline of this figured out from the start.
Overall, as much as I regret it, this thriller did not work for me at all. It's confusing--but not in an exciting, psychological way, predictable, and filled with narrative threads that never seem to link back together. Others seemed to enjoy it more, so I hope that's the case for you if you pick it up.
I received a copy from Netgalley and Thomas & Mercer in return for an unbiased review.
Well, the synopsis for this one sounded interesting, but this was a hot mess for me. I did not like much of this book at all, but kept reading because I needed to find out what happened. I think I was as confused as these hapless and unlikable characters, honestly. Deborah is clearly disoriented and bewildered throughout the book--alone and terrified on the farm--and it's nearly impossible to muddle through what's going on in her brain. Sidney is drinking heavily, and while I have complete sympathy for the disease of alcoholism, having lost a beloved relative to it, I'm tired of authors using the trope to give us an unreliable narrator with no real effort for a backstory or anything else.
Neither character comes across as particularly sympathetic, and I got rather tired of reading a book with my brow perpetually furrowed. It was not exciting, just confusing. The plot is truly bizarre, with some weird twists, but I felt I was reading to work out a bad puzzle. Maybe all this befuddlement would have been worth it if the probable "bad guy" had not been telegraphed from a mile away, but I had the outline of this figured out from the start.
Overall, as much as I regret it, this thriller did not work for me at all. It's confusing--but not in an exciting, psychological way, predictable, and filled with narrative threads that never seem to link back together. Others seemed to enjoy it more, so I hope that's the case for you if you pick it up.
I received a copy from Netgalley and Thomas & Mercer in return for an unbiased review.
