Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Eternals (2021) in Movies
Nov 10, 2021
Works Well Enough
The interesting thing about creating a Cinematic “Universe” (like Marvel has done and others are desperately trying to do) is that because it is a “Universe” you can tell different types of stories with different types of characters in differing styles.
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tom and Jerry (2021) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
The animation looks nice (2 more)
Decent laughs
Gets the Tom and Jerry part of the movie right
Too predictable (2 more)
Bad plot
Barely above average movie overall
Visually Pleasing With Decent Laughs Sprinkled Throughout
Tom and Jerry is a 2021 live-action/CGI animated comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kevin Costello. The film was produced by Chris DeFaria and Warner Animation Group, The Story Company, and Turner Entertainment Co. and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The movie stars Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael Pena, Colin Jost, Robe Delaney and Ken Jeong.
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Lockdown (Escape from Furnace, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
<b> My summary: </b> Alex was like any other boy. Go to school, hang out with his group, and control the monkey bars. But when he started stealing, his life changed for the worse. Out of nowhere, his best friend is murdered, and he is framed for it. he is sent to the child prison: a Hell hole. Worse than Hell. Furnace. When he’s there, he is disgusted with the way people live. Kids do hard labor like chipping rock. Gangs kill kids. and he isn’t the only innocent person who was framed. But there’s no hope of escape. Nobody can escape furnace. Or at least, that’s what they all say. <i> But that’s only because nobody ever has… </i>
<b> What I felt: </b> Personally, the first time I looked at the cover, I found it just a little disturbing. I thought “eh, I doubt very seriously I’ll like that book. But hey—they want to send me a free book? I’ll take a free book.” So no, I didn’t really like the cover. They could have done much better, either artistically or graphically or even with the colors. But that’s just me as an artist and a girl :D so I did judge it. boy was that a mistake.
The first sentence of this book seemed to grab me by the neck: “If I stopped running, I was dead.” From there, the entire book held me and wouldn’t let me go, from that first sentence to the very end. In fact, it held me after the end, too. I distinctly remember my blood racing, heart beating, sweating, adrenalin searing through my veins while I read this book! It was breathtaking and riveting to the last word. And even after the last word. I sat there, staring at the blank page, gasping and panting like a dog from lack of oxygen from reading a book. (that doesn’t happen very often, people.)
<b> Characters: </b> The characters in this book were very relatable. They weren’t super people, they were real. They handled the horrific experiences of Furnace the same way I would have—screaming in their sleep, crying, throwing up from the horrors.
<b> Writing: </b> the writing was very good—not one of those books where the author just says what he wants to say. Alexander Gordon Smith followed my creative writing teachers’ first rule: Show, don’t tell. It was an amazing thing to read, the language was very full in vocabulary, and it had good prose. There wasn’t any really bad foul language either, like some of the other teen books I’ve been reading lately.
Recommendation: this book is a thriller, not a horror book, even though it’s mildly graphic (mildly. Not really that bad. Descriptive enough to be kinda gross at times… but hey, it could be just because I’m a girl.). It’s not the most horrific book I’ve ever read, but it’s certainly not for an eight-year-old. Personally I’d recommend it for anyone fourteen and up (but that’s just me).
Here is a link for a giveaway for this book! http://haleymathiot.blogspot.com/2009/09/win-lockdown.html
<b> What I felt: </b> Personally, the first time I looked at the cover, I found it just a little disturbing. I thought “eh, I doubt very seriously I’ll like that book. But hey—they want to send me a free book? I’ll take a free book.” So no, I didn’t really like the cover. They could have done much better, either artistically or graphically or even with the colors. But that’s just me as an artist and a girl :D so I did judge it. boy was that a mistake.
The first sentence of this book seemed to grab me by the neck: “If I stopped running, I was dead.” From there, the entire book held me and wouldn’t let me go, from that first sentence to the very end. In fact, it held me after the end, too. I distinctly remember my blood racing, heart beating, sweating, adrenalin searing through my veins while I read this book! It was breathtaking and riveting to the last word. And even after the last word. I sat there, staring at the blank page, gasping and panting like a dog from lack of oxygen from reading a book. (that doesn’t happen very often, people.)
<b> Characters: </b> The characters in this book were very relatable. They weren’t super people, they were real. They handled the horrific experiences of Furnace the same way I would have—screaming in their sleep, crying, throwing up from the horrors.
<b> Writing: </b> the writing was very good—not one of those books where the author just says what he wants to say. Alexander Gordon Smith followed my creative writing teachers’ first rule: Show, don’t tell. It was an amazing thing to read, the language was very full in vocabulary, and it had good prose. There wasn’t any really bad foul language either, like some of the other teen books I’ve been reading lately.
Recommendation: this book is a thriller, not a horror book, even though it’s mildly graphic (mildly. Not really that bad. Descriptive enough to be kinda gross at times… but hey, it could be just because I’m a girl.). It’s not the most horrific book I’ve ever read, but it’s certainly not for an eight-year-old. Personally I’d recommend it for anyone fourteen and up (but that’s just me).
Here is a link for a giveaway for this book! http://haleymathiot.blogspot.com/2009/09/win-lockdown.html
Debbie (52 KP) rated Storm Runners (Storm Runners, #1) in Books
Feb 23, 2019
Storm Runners
By: Roland Smith
Main Characters: Chase and John Masters
Side Characters: Tomas (employee of John Masters), Nicole (daughter of Marco and school friend), Momma Rossi (mother of Marco), Marco, Rashawn (school friend), Dr. Krupp (school principal),
Richard Krupp (TV anchor and principal's husband), Cindy Stewart (meteorologist), and Mark (cameraman)
Setting: Florida
The book starts out with John getting stroke by lightening as he gathers his tools from the backyard. As it is raining and Chase left them out after working a tree house.
One year later they are both traveling around the states with Tomas. they are helping people rebuild after hurricanes. Chase is never in one school long enough to make friends. His dad does make him carry a to go bag which has emergency supplies.
His dad changed after being stroke by lightening. He has an eternal clock that is extremely actarit. He no longer sleeps more than 4 hours a night. He is also very good at telling where a hurricane will hit.
John is dropping Chase off at a farm where Tomas' Brother works to go to school while they head to Saint Petersburg (Saint Pete). This is where John thinks that Hurricane Emily will hit.
On this farm he meets Marco, Nicole and Momma Rossi. Marco and Momma Rossi are little people and Nicole is normal size. This is no ordinary farm. This is a circus farm. There is a giraffe, loins, a pregnant elephant, monkey and leopard.
Chase goes to school with Nicole. He checks himself in because Dad is on his way to Saint Pete. This is unusual but he does it all the time. Dr. Krupp questions him but goes ahead and gives him a schedule. As the day goes on the weather in his area is getting worse. He realizes his Dad is wrong this time about where the Hurricane will hit. As school ends he try's to tell Dr. Krupp that they would safer at the school instead of on the bus heading home. She doesn't listen and sends them on their way. She wants to get home to her own children.
This is where the adventures begins and where they meet Rashawn another girl from school who lives by the farm.
Meanwhile in Saint Pete. John is waiting with Tomas for Hurricane Emily to hit. He talks with the Cindy and actually films a segment on the news. Richard is actually arguing a little with Cindy about the Hurricane. Cindy doesn't think the Hurricane will hit Saint Pete. As they realize that Hurricane Emily is in fact not going to hit Saint Pete but where Chase is John wants to go back.
He offers to take Cindy and Mark with him to get updated information on the storm. They both agree to go.
What happens to John and his crew? Do Chase, Rashawn and Nicole make it home?
This book leaves off on a cliff hanger, which makes you wonder.
I greatly enjoyed the book and have purchased the next book to read and see what happens.
I recommend that you read this book to your children or for yourself.
By: Roland Smith
Main Characters: Chase and John Masters
Side Characters: Tomas (employee of John Masters), Nicole (daughter of Marco and school friend), Momma Rossi (mother of Marco), Marco, Rashawn (school friend), Dr. Krupp (school principal),
Richard Krupp (TV anchor and principal's husband), Cindy Stewart (meteorologist), and Mark (cameraman)
Setting: Florida
The book starts out with John getting stroke by lightening as he gathers his tools from the backyard. As it is raining and Chase left them out after working a tree house.
One year later they are both traveling around the states with Tomas. they are helping people rebuild after hurricanes. Chase is never in one school long enough to make friends. His dad does make him carry a to go bag which has emergency supplies.
His dad changed after being stroke by lightening. He has an eternal clock that is extremely actarit. He no longer sleeps more than 4 hours a night. He is also very good at telling where a hurricane will hit.
John is dropping Chase off at a farm where Tomas' Brother works to go to school while they head to Saint Petersburg (Saint Pete). This is where John thinks that Hurricane Emily will hit.
On this farm he meets Marco, Nicole and Momma Rossi. Marco and Momma Rossi are little people and Nicole is normal size. This is no ordinary farm. This is a circus farm. There is a giraffe, loins, a pregnant elephant, monkey and leopard.
Chase goes to school with Nicole. He checks himself in because Dad is on his way to Saint Pete. This is unusual but he does it all the time. Dr. Krupp questions him but goes ahead and gives him a schedule. As the day goes on the weather in his area is getting worse. He realizes his Dad is wrong this time about where the Hurricane will hit. As school ends he try's to tell Dr. Krupp that they would safer at the school instead of on the bus heading home. She doesn't listen and sends them on their way. She wants to get home to her own children.
This is where the adventures begins and where they meet Rashawn another girl from school who lives by the farm.
Meanwhile in Saint Pete. John is waiting with Tomas for Hurricane Emily to hit. He talks with the Cindy and actually films a segment on the news. Richard is actually arguing a little with Cindy about the Hurricane. Cindy doesn't think the Hurricane will hit Saint Pete. As they realize that Hurricane Emily is in fact not going to hit Saint Pete but where Chase is John wants to go back.
He offers to take Cindy and Mark with him to get updated information on the storm. They both agree to go.
What happens to John and his crew? Do Chase, Rashawn and Nicole make it home?
This book leaves off on a cliff hanger, which makes you wonder.
I greatly enjoyed the book and have purchased the next book to read and see what happens.
I recommend that you read this book to your children or for yourself.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Important Movie
Set in the 1970’s, the first black police officer on the Colorado Springs police force attempts to infiltrate the Klu Klux Klan by becoming one of them.
Acting: 10
I don’t know who I liked better throughout the movie, John David Washington as Ron Stallworth or Adam Driver playing Jewish cop Flip Zimmerman. Not only were they amazing individually, but they complimented each other with great chemistry on screen. Whatever emotion director Spike Lee was trying to make you feel was amplified in their joint scenes. Washington is charming, funny, and witty, all the things you want from a leading role. His heroic character is one of my favorites from the year.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The visuals are amazingly crisp, poignant for each scene. It transports you perfectly into the time period without feeling overdone. While the film is largely a comedy, it succeeds in spots by relying on tension and intense moments. Spike Lee has a way of capturing those moments with sheer perfection. It has an artsy feel to it, sometimes over the top, but never unrelatable. Relatable Art. I think that’s the best way to describe it.
Conflict: 10
Whether subtle or in your face, conflict comes in waves throughout BlackkKlansman. You keep waiting for bad things to happen and sometimes they do. When they don’t, you know it’s only a matter of time before things get harry again. There was never a point where I was bored in the movie. Even the planning scenes where they were trying to figure out just how to get a black man to infiltrate a white supremacist organization was fun to watch.
Genre: 10
One of the most important dramas of our generation. Period. Nothing else needs to be said here.
Memorability: 10
The story in and of itself brings an originality you won’t soon forget. On paper, it sounds absolutely nuts. Watching it unfold on the big screen is even more nuts. Even though it’s based on a true story, it’s still very much hard to believe. It’s powerful and real with solid messaging that translates to the now. Even the comedy in certain moments has a way of leaving a real impact.
Pace: 10
The film is long, but it’s a smooth long. The pacing feels like a brisk jog. You always know the direction you’re heading and it never feels like it has to cheat or take shortcuts to properly tell the story. Not boring in the least. Engaging and entertaining throughout.
Plot: 8
Again, much respect for an original story. My one gripe: I don’t think the love story was necessary. It didn’t really contribute to the movie as a whole. Everything outside of that was wonderful and beautifully done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Expected to like BlackkKlansman, but I fell in love with this movie. It tells a wonderful story that leaves you talking long after it’s over. I’ve said this already, but it bears repeating: This is one of the most important films of our generation. See it. Don’t think twice.
Acting: 10
I don’t know who I liked better throughout the movie, John David Washington as Ron Stallworth or Adam Driver playing Jewish cop Flip Zimmerman. Not only were they amazing individually, but they complimented each other with great chemistry on screen. Whatever emotion director Spike Lee was trying to make you feel was amplified in their joint scenes. Washington is charming, funny, and witty, all the things you want from a leading role. His heroic character is one of my favorites from the year.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The visuals are amazingly crisp, poignant for each scene. It transports you perfectly into the time period without feeling overdone. While the film is largely a comedy, it succeeds in spots by relying on tension and intense moments. Spike Lee has a way of capturing those moments with sheer perfection. It has an artsy feel to it, sometimes over the top, but never unrelatable. Relatable Art. I think that’s the best way to describe it.
Conflict: 10
Whether subtle or in your face, conflict comes in waves throughout BlackkKlansman. You keep waiting for bad things to happen and sometimes they do. When they don’t, you know it’s only a matter of time before things get harry again. There was never a point where I was bored in the movie. Even the planning scenes where they were trying to figure out just how to get a black man to infiltrate a white supremacist organization was fun to watch.
Genre: 10
One of the most important dramas of our generation. Period. Nothing else needs to be said here.
Memorability: 10
The story in and of itself brings an originality you won’t soon forget. On paper, it sounds absolutely nuts. Watching it unfold on the big screen is even more nuts. Even though it’s based on a true story, it’s still very much hard to believe. It’s powerful and real with solid messaging that translates to the now. Even the comedy in certain moments has a way of leaving a real impact.
Pace: 10
The film is long, but it’s a smooth long. The pacing feels like a brisk jog. You always know the direction you’re heading and it never feels like it has to cheat or take shortcuts to properly tell the story. Not boring in the least. Engaging and entertaining throughout.
Plot: 8
Again, much respect for an original story. My one gripe: I don’t think the love story was necessary. It didn’t really contribute to the movie as a whole. Everything outside of that was wonderful and beautifully done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Expected to like BlackkKlansman, but I fell in love with this movie. It tells a wonderful story that leaves you talking long after it’s over. I’ve said this already, but it bears repeating: This is one of the most important films of our generation. See it. Don’t think twice.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Yet another missfire
It’s hard to remember such a lacklustre summer blockbuster season. From unnecessary sequels to underwhelming novel adaptations, it’s been one disappointment after another.
After the criticism of spring’s Batman v Superman, DC Comics and Warner Bros. really needed a hit on their hands if they were to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Suicide Squad is their answer, but after an exhaustive marketing campaign, is the final product any good?
To be frank, not really. Director David Ayer has one of the best ensemble casts in years, but wastes them in a film as loud as any Transformers movie, and about as clever as one too.
Figuring they’re all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer (Viola Davis) decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own.
From the outset, you can tell Suicide Squad isn’t going to waste time with lengthy introductions to its main characters, and this is a breath of fresh air. It gets around this stumbling block in stylish ease as each villain is given his or her own 3 minute backstory, with nifty graphics completing the sequences.
It’s a pleasing start to a film that promised so much in its trailers, but things really start to go downhill from there as our characters are forced to muscle their way through countless faceless enemies, culminating in a derivative battle against, you guessed it, more dull enemies. It’s almost like watching a third-person video game taking place on a massive screen.
Nevertheless, the cast does well with the material they’re given. Will Smith is his ever-likeable self and channels Deadshot from the source material with flair. However, the film really belongs to Margot Robbie and Jared Leto. Their performances are spot on, with Robbie in particular being the film’s ray of sunshine. Leto’s Joker is unfortunately not given anywhere near enough screen time despite the film’s two hour length.
The soundtrack is fantastic. Boasting Eminem, Grace and Panic at the Disco, it’s a pleasant distraction from the at times incomprehensible mayhem taking place on screen.
Special effects wise, Suicide Squad is fine, if a little uninspiring. The editing and cinematography are very clever indeed but the CGI goes from great to poor in a heartbeat. Considering the film’s $175million budget, this is completely unacceptable.
Overall, Suicide Squad promised us so much and has delivered relatively little. Drawing from the exceptional DC Universe, audiences could’ve had a film completely different from the slew of superhero films we are constantly blighted with these days. Instead, we’ve been given one of the most generic yet and it continues 2016’s trend as one of the worst summer blockbuster seasons in recent memory.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/08/yet-another-misfire-suicide-squad-review/
After the criticism of spring’s Batman v Superman, DC Comics and Warner Bros. really needed a hit on their hands if they were to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Suicide Squad is their answer, but after an exhaustive marketing campaign, is the final product any good?
To be frank, not really. Director David Ayer has one of the best ensemble casts in years, but wastes them in a film as loud as any Transformers movie, and about as clever as one too.
Figuring they’re all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer (Viola Davis) decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own.
From the outset, you can tell Suicide Squad isn’t going to waste time with lengthy introductions to its main characters, and this is a breath of fresh air. It gets around this stumbling block in stylish ease as each villain is given his or her own 3 minute backstory, with nifty graphics completing the sequences.
It’s a pleasing start to a film that promised so much in its trailers, but things really start to go downhill from there as our characters are forced to muscle their way through countless faceless enemies, culminating in a derivative battle against, you guessed it, more dull enemies. It’s almost like watching a third-person video game taking place on a massive screen.
Nevertheless, the cast does well with the material they’re given. Will Smith is his ever-likeable self and channels Deadshot from the source material with flair. However, the film really belongs to Margot Robbie and Jared Leto. Their performances are spot on, with Robbie in particular being the film’s ray of sunshine. Leto’s Joker is unfortunately not given anywhere near enough screen time despite the film’s two hour length.
The soundtrack is fantastic. Boasting Eminem, Grace and Panic at the Disco, it’s a pleasant distraction from the at times incomprehensible mayhem taking place on screen.
Special effects wise, Suicide Squad is fine, if a little uninspiring. The editing and cinematography are very clever indeed but the CGI goes from great to poor in a heartbeat. Considering the film’s $175million budget, this is completely unacceptable.
Overall, Suicide Squad promised us so much and has delivered relatively little. Drawing from the exceptional DC Universe, audiences could’ve had a film completely different from the slew of superhero films we are constantly blighted with these days. Instead, we’ve been given one of the most generic yet and it continues 2016’s trend as one of the worst summer blockbuster seasons in recent memory.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/08/yet-another-misfire-suicide-squad-review/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Book Of Mirrors in Books
Mar 15, 2018
This novel may have been slow but I found its mystery so enticing that I loved moving and learning with each character. So many theories run through this novel that youre never sure what to think, its a great classic murder mystery.
Its only taken me almost a year to knock this book off my Netgalley shelf, but I finally got there! Id seen lots of hype for this one at the beginning of 2017 but I still didnt feel inclined to pick it up back then. Now Ive read it, Im glad that I waited. I think this one would have disappointed me if I had read it in its prime due to its slow nature, but I can appreciate slow books far more now than I could back then.
Like so many other reviewers, I did think this one was pretty slow paced, but I actually quite liked that about the plot. A cold case of over 20 years isnt going to get solved overnight, so it was practical that it took a while to find out what really went on that night. I do think there were some sections of the book that were unnecessary and added to the slowness of the plot, for example when one narrator gets on a plane and theres a whole segment about an irrelevant salesman talking to him and flirting with a girl. That bit wasnt needed in any way for the plot to progress and did just feel like filler bumf, but Ive read books with far worse filler scenes.
This story is told in a few different ways. Its told in the perspective of 3 different people and then also as a book within a book. I really liked the way this was laid out and think having the 3 different tones of voice gave the story some character it could have missed out on had it just stayed with the one narrator.
Each character in this was interesting in their own way, and I liked that each person had their own story to tell while also moving the main mystery along.
In terms of plot, this one wasnt the most innovative or astounding, but there was something enchanting about it. There were a few different theories as to Professor Weiders demise and I liked that it kept you guessing all along. I was actually quite surprised and impressed by the end of the book, the conclusion to the mystery was cleverly thought out and well executed.
Looking at the reviews of this book I think people are being a little harsh. There are lots of books that are slow mysteries but this one seems to be pissing people off more than most. I know its down to everyones own opinion but I dont see what the big issue with this one was. Personally, I enjoyed it.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Arrow for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Its only taken me almost a year to knock this book off my Netgalley shelf, but I finally got there! Id seen lots of hype for this one at the beginning of 2017 but I still didnt feel inclined to pick it up back then. Now Ive read it, Im glad that I waited. I think this one would have disappointed me if I had read it in its prime due to its slow nature, but I can appreciate slow books far more now than I could back then.
Like so many other reviewers, I did think this one was pretty slow paced, but I actually quite liked that about the plot. A cold case of over 20 years isnt going to get solved overnight, so it was practical that it took a while to find out what really went on that night. I do think there were some sections of the book that were unnecessary and added to the slowness of the plot, for example when one narrator gets on a plane and theres a whole segment about an irrelevant salesman talking to him and flirting with a girl. That bit wasnt needed in any way for the plot to progress and did just feel like filler bumf, but Ive read books with far worse filler scenes.
This story is told in a few different ways. Its told in the perspective of 3 different people and then also as a book within a book. I really liked the way this was laid out and think having the 3 different tones of voice gave the story some character it could have missed out on had it just stayed with the one narrator.
Each character in this was interesting in their own way, and I liked that each person had their own story to tell while also moving the main mystery along.
In terms of plot, this one wasnt the most innovative or astounding, but there was something enchanting about it. There were a few different theories as to Professor Weiders demise and I liked that it kept you guessing all along. I was actually quite surprised and impressed by the end of the book, the conclusion to the mystery was cleverly thought out and well executed.
Looking at the reviews of this book I think people are being a little harsh. There are lots of books that are slow mysteries but this one seems to be pissing people off more than most. I know its down to everyones own opinion but I dont see what the big issue with this one was. Personally, I enjoyed it.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Arrow for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Second Love of My Life in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Victoria Walters’ debut novel, <i>The Second Love of My Life</i>, is a must read for fans of women’s fiction. Set in a coastal village in Cornwall, Walters explores themes of love, grief and survival in this satisfying narrative.
Rose Walker was once known in her small village for being an up-and-coming artist, however now she is branded as the woman who was widowed at twenty four. The story begins two years after the tragic event involving a car collision between her husband, Lucas, and a drunk driver. Since then Rose has wallowed in her grief and not picked up a paintbrush; therefore the upcoming village fair will be the last time she ever sells her paintings.
A stranger, Robert Green, shocks both Rose and the community by purchasing all of her remaining artwork for an extortionate amount of money. Intrigued by this mysterious man, Rose begins to creep back out of her shell, exploring feelings she has not felt for quite some time. However, just as she believes she cold fall in love again, Robert reveals he is not the man she thought he was.
In a way there are two focuses of this novel. One is Rose’s love life and the other is her artwork. The former is obvious from the title alone. “<i>The Second Love of My Life</i>” suggests that the protagonist has been in love before, and falls in love again. There was a danger of this story becoming predictable: girl is heartbroken, girl meets man, girl falls in love, something bad happens, bad thing is resolved; however the inclusion of Rose’s (former) passion for art gives the book a unique streak.
Many artists will be able to relate to (even if they have never been brokenhearted) the feeling of being unable to produce work – a mental block. <i>The Second Love of My Life</i> reveals the trials Rose goes through in order to get her life back together by forcing herself through the barriers her mind has created in order to deal with her deeper emotions. Although it was Robert that inspired Rose to begin painting again, she does this mostly by herself, showing the reader that she is a strong, capable woman who does not need a man to save her – getting the man is an added bonus.
Whether because this is a first novel, or whether it is Walters’ writing style, there are times when it is difficult to tell what is speech and what is the main character’s internal monologue. Occasionally I found myself wondering whether the lack of speech marks was an editing error or intentional.
<i>The Second Love of My Life</i> has been likened to the works of Cecelia Ahern (author of <i>P.S. I Love You</i>), which is admittedly the reason I chose to read it. Whilst Walters’ writing is not quite up there with the popular authors, there is no doubt that one-day she will be. This is an impressive debut and definitely an author to look out for.
Victoria Walters’ debut novel, <i>The Second Love of My Life</i>, is a must read for fans of women’s fiction. Set in a coastal village in Cornwall, Walters explores themes of love, grief and survival in this satisfying narrative.
Rose Walker was once known in her small village for being an up-and-coming artist, however now she is branded as the woman who was widowed at twenty four. The story begins two years after the tragic event involving a car collision between her husband, Lucas, and a drunk driver. Since then Rose has wallowed in her grief and not picked up a paintbrush; therefore the upcoming village fair will be the last time she ever sells her paintings.
A stranger, Robert Green, shocks both Rose and the community by purchasing all of her remaining artwork for an extortionate amount of money. Intrigued by this mysterious man, Rose begins to creep back out of her shell, exploring feelings she has not felt for quite some time. However, just as she believes she cold fall in love again, Robert reveals he is not the man she thought he was.
In a way there are two focuses of this novel. One is Rose’s love life and the other is her artwork. The former is obvious from the title alone. “<i>The Second Love of My Life</i>” suggests that the protagonist has been in love before, and falls in love again. There was a danger of this story becoming predictable: girl is heartbroken, girl meets man, girl falls in love, something bad happens, bad thing is resolved; however the inclusion of Rose’s (former) passion for art gives the book a unique streak.
Many artists will be able to relate to (even if they have never been brokenhearted) the feeling of being unable to produce work – a mental block. <i>The Second Love of My Life</i> reveals the trials Rose goes through in order to get her life back together by forcing herself through the barriers her mind has created in order to deal with her deeper emotions. Although it was Robert that inspired Rose to begin painting again, she does this mostly by herself, showing the reader that she is a strong, capable woman who does not need a man to save her – getting the man is an added bonus.
Whether because this is a first novel, or whether it is Walters’ writing style, there are times when it is difficult to tell what is speech and what is the main character’s internal monologue. Occasionally I found myself wondering whether the lack of speech marks was an editing error or intentional.
<i>The Second Love of My Life</i> has been likened to the works of Cecelia Ahern (author of <i>P.S. I Love You</i>), which is admittedly the reason I chose to read it. Whilst Walters’ writing is not quite up there with the popular authors, there is no doubt that one-day she will be. This is an impressive debut and definitely an author to look out for.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Gridiron Gang (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Often the true mark of cinema, this is the category where you will often find the majority of the award winners. The challenge of combining realistic yet sympathetic characters with gripping stories and emotional themes can be a true challenge, but when it works, this is where Hollywood truly shines.
In his latest film Gridiron Gang Dwayne Johnson, better known as the Rock has an appealing mix of sports action, drama, and comedy on his hands that will not only touch you, but will have you cheering.
The Rock stars as Sean Porter, a former college football star who works in a L.A. Area detention center for juvenile offenders. Saddened by the wasted lives of the young men, Sean looks for them to find an alternative to the life of crime, violence, and early death that so many of his inmates face.
With 75% of offenders likely to become repeat offenders, Sean decides to start a football team with the hope of teaching the young inmates the value of hard work, sacrifice, playing as a team, and duty.
Despite some initial obstacles from the system as well as school leagues hesitant to play against convicted offenders, the team son finds themselves with a full schedule and less than three weeks to go before their first game.
The hard practice and coaching style of Sean wears on the players, but they soon find themselves in their first game against a hardened and proven team which underscores just how much work they have to do.
As pressure mounts from all sides, Sean must find a way to meld his team into a winner and prove that this is a project worth doing and that the young men in his care are not lost causes, but are deserving of a new start.
While much of the film may play out as you would expect with the team coming together to play the big game, what is refreshing about the film is the solid performance of The Rock who shows that he is more than just an action star and is very capable of acting. He mixes his portrayal of Sean with equal amounts toughness and caring, to create what is easily his most mature and well defined character to date.
The supporting cast is good, especially Xzibit as Malcolm Moore, who provides a solid supporting presence to The Rock.
While the film is heavy on football action, it also does not shy away from giving the audience a glimpse of the life that the team comes from and how old rivalries and
hostilities can follow them even when they try to leave them behind with the best of intentions.
The action on the field is first-rate as the game choreography never lets up, and is easily the most accurate portrayal of the sport ever committed to film. You can tell that the cast is playing with heart and passion and not simply going through the motions.
Despite a few predictable moments, Gridiron Gang is a very pleasant surprise that is one of the years most enjoyable and satisfying films.
In his latest film Gridiron Gang Dwayne Johnson, better known as the Rock has an appealing mix of sports action, drama, and comedy on his hands that will not only touch you, but will have you cheering.
The Rock stars as Sean Porter, a former college football star who works in a L.A. Area detention center for juvenile offenders. Saddened by the wasted lives of the young men, Sean looks for them to find an alternative to the life of crime, violence, and early death that so many of his inmates face.
With 75% of offenders likely to become repeat offenders, Sean decides to start a football team with the hope of teaching the young inmates the value of hard work, sacrifice, playing as a team, and duty.
Despite some initial obstacles from the system as well as school leagues hesitant to play against convicted offenders, the team son finds themselves with a full schedule and less than three weeks to go before their first game.
The hard practice and coaching style of Sean wears on the players, but they soon find themselves in their first game against a hardened and proven team which underscores just how much work they have to do.
As pressure mounts from all sides, Sean must find a way to meld his team into a winner and prove that this is a project worth doing and that the young men in his care are not lost causes, but are deserving of a new start.
While much of the film may play out as you would expect with the team coming together to play the big game, what is refreshing about the film is the solid performance of The Rock who shows that he is more than just an action star and is very capable of acting. He mixes his portrayal of Sean with equal amounts toughness and caring, to create what is easily his most mature and well defined character to date.
The supporting cast is good, especially Xzibit as Malcolm Moore, who provides a solid supporting presence to The Rock.
While the film is heavy on football action, it also does not shy away from giving the audience a glimpse of the life that the team comes from and how old rivalries and
hostilities can follow them even when they try to leave them behind with the best of intentions.
The action on the field is first-rate as the game choreography never lets up, and is easily the most accurate portrayal of the sport ever committed to film. You can tell that the cast is playing with heart and passion and not simply going through the motions.
Despite a few predictable moments, Gridiron Gang is a very pleasant surprise that is one of the years most enjoyable and satisfying films.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Due to its ensemble cast, gorgeous aesthetics and whodunit storyline, it’s safe to say that I had high expectations for Knives Out.
I’m pleased to report that it surpassed each and every one of them.
Rian Johnson’s tale of mystery follows the death of renowned crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), which took place after his 85th birthday. Presumed to be a murder, his eccentric and very large family are soon under investigation by Detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) and his team.
Straight away, Daniel Craig steals the show with his hilarious performance of Detective Blanc. From his deep Southern American drawl to his quirky mannerisms, this is so far removed from what you’d expect from a Craig performance. I’ve never seen him have this much fun in a role before.
He’s tasked with getting to the bottom of what happened, which involves a delightful series of interviews in which the family are sitting in front of several display knives, just one of the many eccentricities of the Thrombey manor house. In terms of set design it’s just glorious to look at, and even one of the characters compares it to a Cluedo board.
Even the characters themselves are quirky enough to be boxed up inside the classic board game, and could give the likes of Miss Scarlet and Colonel Mustard a run for their money.
Characters include Thrombey’s daughter and real estate mogul Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard (Don Johnson), and outcast trust fund son Ransom (Chris Evans), who form quite the dysfunctional family even when you remove them from the bigger picture.
Then there’s the rather insufferable, yet hugely entertaining, lifestyle guru Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette) and her daughter and social activist Meg (Katherine Langford). These two characters are parodies of popular blogging culture and ‘social justice warriors’, and they’re hilarious.
Each character has been wonderfully crafted by Rian Johnson, who both wrote and directed Knives Out. They’re essentially caricatures, but the result of this is a thoroughly entertaining cinema experience. What a brilliant use of such a talented cast.
The only seemingly normal person wrapped up in all this is caretaker Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), who acted as both a friend and nurse to Harlan prior to his death. Even against a backdrop of such bold characters, de Armas’ performance shines just as brightly.
Mysteries are hard to get right, and being able to predict the ending is a bragging right for many cinephiles. Well unfortunately, this script absolutely floored me with how fantastic it was, and I was unable to predict anything that went down. Johnson has serious talent when it comes to crafting a murder-mystery.
Don’t even get me started on how gorgeous the wardrobe in this film is either. If anyone knows where I can get Jamie Lee Curtis’ striking red suit, you need to tell me immediately.
Watching Knives Out was the most fun I’ve had in the cinema this year, perhaps ever. I was fully engrossed from start to finish, and walked out with the biggest smile on my face.
If you see one film this autumn, make it this one. You won’t regret it.
I’m pleased to report that it surpassed each and every one of them.
Rian Johnson’s tale of mystery follows the death of renowned crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), which took place after his 85th birthday. Presumed to be a murder, his eccentric and very large family are soon under investigation by Detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) and his team.
Straight away, Daniel Craig steals the show with his hilarious performance of Detective Blanc. From his deep Southern American drawl to his quirky mannerisms, this is so far removed from what you’d expect from a Craig performance. I’ve never seen him have this much fun in a role before.
He’s tasked with getting to the bottom of what happened, which involves a delightful series of interviews in which the family are sitting in front of several display knives, just one of the many eccentricities of the Thrombey manor house. In terms of set design it’s just glorious to look at, and even one of the characters compares it to a Cluedo board.
Even the characters themselves are quirky enough to be boxed up inside the classic board game, and could give the likes of Miss Scarlet and Colonel Mustard a run for their money.
Characters include Thrombey’s daughter and real estate mogul Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard (Don Johnson), and outcast trust fund son Ransom (Chris Evans), who form quite the dysfunctional family even when you remove them from the bigger picture.
Then there’s the rather insufferable, yet hugely entertaining, lifestyle guru Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette) and her daughter and social activist Meg (Katherine Langford). These two characters are parodies of popular blogging culture and ‘social justice warriors’, and they’re hilarious.
Each character has been wonderfully crafted by Rian Johnson, who both wrote and directed Knives Out. They’re essentially caricatures, but the result of this is a thoroughly entertaining cinema experience. What a brilliant use of such a talented cast.
The only seemingly normal person wrapped up in all this is caretaker Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), who acted as both a friend and nurse to Harlan prior to his death. Even against a backdrop of such bold characters, de Armas’ performance shines just as brightly.
Mysteries are hard to get right, and being able to predict the ending is a bragging right for many cinephiles. Well unfortunately, this script absolutely floored me with how fantastic it was, and I was unable to predict anything that went down. Johnson has serious talent when it comes to crafting a murder-mystery.
Don’t even get me started on how gorgeous the wardrobe in this film is either. If anyone knows where I can get Jamie Lee Curtis’ striking red suit, you need to tell me immediately.
Watching Knives Out was the most fun I’ve had in the cinema this year, perhaps ever. I was fully engrossed from start to finish, and walked out with the biggest smile on my face.
If you see one film this autumn, make it this one. You won’t regret it.