Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Apr 16, 2018
Not a Masterpiece, but has a Masterful performance
With the DARK KNIGHT, Christopher Nolan kicks his movie's up a notch. His previous films were critical - but not necessarily commercial - successes. With the 2nd of his Batman trilogy, Nolan swings for the seats and in more ways than one, hits a home run.
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Well acted - and important - film
The new Jay Roach film, BOMBSHELL - the Fox News sex scandal film - focuses on the struggles of 3 female protagonists - Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman), Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) and Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) - as they attempt to climb (or stay at the top of) the Corporate Ladder while battling sexism and a toxic work culture at Fox News. It is a powerful story that is a necessary tale in the "#MeToo" era that demands viewers to stand up and take notice.
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Toy Story (1995) in Movies
Jan 1, 2021
A masterpiece
Film #9 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Toy Story
When Toy Story was first released in 1995, it was groundbreaking. The first ever fully computer animated film and the first released by Disney Pixar, this was also one of the first films I saw at the cinema as an 8 year old child. Admittedly at that age I was concentrating more on the colourful animated toys rather than appreciating the sheer wizardry on offer, but from repeated watches over the decades, I’ve come to fully recognise the sheer genius of this film.
Toy Story centres around the idea that toys are alive, a concept that most children would love to be true. It follows Woody, a cowboy voiced by Tom Hanks, who’s cushy existence as the top dog of Andy’s toys is disrupted by a new space ranger doll, Buzz Lightyear, voiced by Tim Allen. As Buzz soon becomes Andy’s favourite toy, Woody’s jealousy drives him to desperate measures that wind up with the pair of them becoming ‘lost toys’ and captives of evil neighbour Sid. And together with Buzz and Woody are a whole host of colourful and wacky toy characters, including Mr Potato Head (Don Rickles), Slinky Dog (Jim Varney), Etch-a Sketch and a bucketful of toy soldiers to name but a few of the childhood throwbacks on offer here.
Watching this back 25 years later, it’s hard to believe this film was released in the mid-90s. Whilst you can tell that more recent Disney Pixar releases have improved massively on the animation since Toy Story, the standard of the animation in this is hugely impressive. There are some studios that can’t master this level of detailed animation even now as we move into 2021. The feature and intricacies on show here is impressive, especially with the toy characters - you need to look no further than the scales on Rex (voiced memorably by Wallace Michael Shawn) as a shining example of this.
It isn’t just the animation that that makes Toy Story so brilliant though, it’s the entire package. It’s a heartwarming and often hilarious buddy story of sorts, with some strangely adult messages hidden in the childlike story (Buzz’s disillusionment at being a toy rather than a real space ranger is particularly poignant). As a child this made me believe my toys were alive, and as an adult I’m still hesitant about donating or throwing away old cuddly toys. It’s also full of what we’ve all come to know and love about Disney Pixar: a film suitable for kids but full of grown up innuendos and adult jokes that makes it appropriate for all ages. Alongside this it has a fantastic voice cast in household names Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, and of course brought us the first of many characters voiced by the unforgettable John Ratzenberger. And what further rounds this off is the catchy and touching original songs by Randy Newman. I doubt there are many people who haven’t heard “You’ve Got a Friend in Me”, a song that evokes such a warm and fuzzy feeling inside and is fully deserving of the ‘Best Original Song’ Oscar nomination.
Toy Story is undoubtedly a masterpiece in animation. Whilst it may not have aged incredibly well when comparing it with more recent releases, this is the film that first introduced us to the world of Disney Pixar and paved the way for all of those that have followed.
When Toy Story was first released in 1995, it was groundbreaking. The first ever fully computer animated film and the first released by Disney Pixar, this was also one of the first films I saw at the cinema as an 8 year old child. Admittedly at that age I was concentrating more on the colourful animated toys rather than appreciating the sheer wizardry on offer, but from repeated watches over the decades, I’ve come to fully recognise the sheer genius of this film.
Toy Story centres around the idea that toys are alive, a concept that most children would love to be true. It follows Woody, a cowboy voiced by Tom Hanks, who’s cushy existence as the top dog of Andy’s toys is disrupted by a new space ranger doll, Buzz Lightyear, voiced by Tim Allen. As Buzz soon becomes Andy’s favourite toy, Woody’s jealousy drives him to desperate measures that wind up with the pair of them becoming ‘lost toys’ and captives of evil neighbour Sid. And together with Buzz and Woody are a whole host of colourful and wacky toy characters, including Mr Potato Head (Don Rickles), Slinky Dog (Jim Varney), Etch-a Sketch and a bucketful of toy soldiers to name but a few of the childhood throwbacks on offer here.
Watching this back 25 years later, it’s hard to believe this film was released in the mid-90s. Whilst you can tell that more recent Disney Pixar releases have improved massively on the animation since Toy Story, the standard of the animation in this is hugely impressive. There are some studios that can’t master this level of detailed animation even now as we move into 2021. The feature and intricacies on show here is impressive, especially with the toy characters - you need to look no further than the scales on Rex (voiced memorably by Wallace Michael Shawn) as a shining example of this.
It isn’t just the animation that that makes Toy Story so brilliant though, it’s the entire package. It’s a heartwarming and often hilarious buddy story of sorts, with some strangely adult messages hidden in the childlike story (Buzz’s disillusionment at being a toy rather than a real space ranger is particularly poignant). As a child this made me believe my toys were alive, and as an adult I’m still hesitant about donating or throwing away old cuddly toys. It’s also full of what we’ve all come to know and love about Disney Pixar: a film suitable for kids but full of grown up innuendos and adult jokes that makes it appropriate for all ages. Alongside this it has a fantastic voice cast in household names Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, and of course brought us the first of many characters voiced by the unforgettable John Ratzenberger. And what further rounds this off is the catchy and touching original songs by Randy Newman. I doubt there are many people who haven’t heard “You’ve Got a Friend in Me”, a song that evokes such a warm and fuzzy feeling inside and is fully deserving of the ‘Best Original Song’ Oscar nomination.
Toy Story is undoubtedly a masterpiece in animation. Whilst it may not have aged incredibly well when comparing it with more recent releases, this is the film that first introduced us to the world of Disney Pixar and paved the way for all of those that have followed.
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) in Movies
Jan 30, 2021
Boseman is amazing
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is the latest adaptation of the works of August Wilson brought to us by producer Denzel Washington, following on from the 2016 adaptation of Fences that earned Viola Davis a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Here Washington hands over the directing reins to Tony award winner George C. Wolfe, while Viola Davis returns as the titular Ma Rainey.
Set in 1920s Chicago, the film follows a tense and fractious recording session with Ma Rainey and her backing band, old hands Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) alongside ambitious young horn player Levee (Chadwick Boseman). Tensions rise between Ma, Levee and the recording studio management (Jeremy Shamos as Irvin and Jonny Coyne as Sturdyvant) as each attempts to control the recording session and play songs that fit best with their own motives. Contributing to the frictions are Levee’s flirtation with Ma’s girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and her Ma’s stuttering nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown) as he attempts to introduce Ma’s signature song, Black Bottom.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom undoubtedly looks and sounds good. The cinematography and costumes are perfect and entirely in keeping with the 20s Chicago setting. And the blues music is captivating and beautifully made. To be quite honest I would’ve been quite happy to watch and listen to an entire film solely following the band and their music. However whilst it does look and sound good, it is so obviously a film adapted from a stage play and I’m afraid this isn’t a good thing. There’s a limited number of sets and virtually the entirety of the 90 minute run time is set within two rooms in the recording studio, which makes such a short film feel ridiculously drawn out. This isn’t helped by the huge reliance on very long scripted dialogue and conversational scenes. I can’t deny that the writing is good and is helped by strong performances from everyone involved, but there’s just too much dialogue. This might work on the stage, but on screen it doesn’t quite translate. There’s that much dialogue that the majority of scenes become too heavy and bogged down and sadly almost entirely forgettable. For me a film needs to balance dialogue with actual events and actions, and I’m afraid aside from the final act, nothing much happens here.
Fortunately this is at least boosted by some stellar performances. Viola Davis is brilliant as the spirited Ma Rainey, even if Ma herself as a character is rather unlikeable with some questionable motives for her actions and manners. The star however is the late Chadwick Boseman. While it’s very off putting to see how obviously thin and ill he was filming this, his performance is outstanding. He brings life and fun and heart to every scene he’s in and gives this film a massive boost. Even the drawn out dialogue heavy scenes become enthralling when he’s talking and the emotions on show are spectacular. Despite Viola Davis being the star as Ma, it’s Boseman that carried this film entirely on his shoulders. If he doesn’t win a posthumous Oscar for this, it’d be criminal.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a shining example of stellar performances, most notably Chadwick Boseman. It’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite meet the high standards set by its stars.
Set in 1920s Chicago, the film follows a tense and fractious recording session with Ma Rainey and her backing band, old hands Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) alongside ambitious young horn player Levee (Chadwick Boseman). Tensions rise between Ma, Levee and the recording studio management (Jeremy Shamos as Irvin and Jonny Coyne as Sturdyvant) as each attempts to control the recording session and play songs that fit best with their own motives. Contributing to the frictions are Levee’s flirtation with Ma’s girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and her Ma’s stuttering nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown) as he attempts to introduce Ma’s signature song, Black Bottom.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom undoubtedly looks and sounds good. The cinematography and costumes are perfect and entirely in keeping with the 20s Chicago setting. And the blues music is captivating and beautifully made. To be quite honest I would’ve been quite happy to watch and listen to an entire film solely following the band and their music. However whilst it does look and sound good, it is so obviously a film adapted from a stage play and I’m afraid this isn’t a good thing. There’s a limited number of sets and virtually the entirety of the 90 minute run time is set within two rooms in the recording studio, which makes such a short film feel ridiculously drawn out. This isn’t helped by the huge reliance on very long scripted dialogue and conversational scenes. I can’t deny that the writing is good and is helped by strong performances from everyone involved, but there’s just too much dialogue. This might work on the stage, but on screen it doesn’t quite translate. There’s that much dialogue that the majority of scenes become too heavy and bogged down and sadly almost entirely forgettable. For me a film needs to balance dialogue with actual events and actions, and I’m afraid aside from the final act, nothing much happens here.
Fortunately this is at least boosted by some stellar performances. Viola Davis is brilliant as the spirited Ma Rainey, even if Ma herself as a character is rather unlikeable with some questionable motives for her actions and manners. The star however is the late Chadwick Boseman. While it’s very off putting to see how obviously thin and ill he was filming this, his performance is outstanding. He brings life and fun and heart to every scene he’s in and gives this film a massive boost. Even the drawn out dialogue heavy scenes become enthralling when he’s talking and the emotions on show are spectacular. Despite Viola Davis being the star as Ma, it’s Boseman that carried this film entirely on his shoulders. If he doesn’t win a posthumous Oscar for this, it’d be criminal.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a shining example of stellar performances, most notably Chadwick Boseman. It’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite meet the high standards set by its stars.
Midge (525 KP) rated Who (Stalker #1) in Books
Feb 9, 2019
A Touch Of Brilliance!
Who scares you the most, a complete stranger or a person you know that has you in their sight?
Megan Mitcham’s latest novel, "WHO," delivers an intensely evocative story in this first book of her new Stalker series. With intelligently crafted words and an intriguing plot that has plenty of suspenseful twists, this novel made me want to keep on turning the pages. At first, I found the book a little slow and I was worried that the story wouldn’t live up to its promise, however, the pace soon picked up and I knew I was reading a book that I would come to really enjoy.
Billionaire Larkin Ashford is the fiercely independent owner of her fashion empire which was founded on the back of wedlock. When her company has the opportunity to go public, her Board of Directors won’t give her the green light, unless she agrees to marry. A series of threatening messages aren’t making her decision any easier. As she retreats to her rooftop hideaway to clear her head, she finds herself imprisoned in the strong arms of a mysterious chap who thinks she was about to jump…
Despite her friends’ warnings that her knight in shining armour could be her stalker, she can’t get him out of her head. Determined to find the truth, she searches for her mystery man and discovers a dark secret that could destroy everything that she holds dear. With her empire in danger, she’ll have to uncover the truth before her fortune and her life are reduced to tatters.
I loved the character of Larkin who is efficient, imaginative and extremely shrewd. She has deep-rooted issues with trust from her past and she doesn’t believe in love or long-term relationships. Her mother died when she was thirteen, and she has a tense relationship with her emotionally distant father. She does have a few really close friends that are supportive and loyal. I loved that Megan Mitcham introduced us to an abundance of wonderful characters, especially Larkin’s girlfriends, Genevieve, Marlis and Libby. Their exuberance collectively provides many moments of fun, support and girlie laughter.
Larkin’s high profile life is very much lived in the limelight and with major personal and business decisions needing to be made, who is causing so much trouble for her and what will be the price she has to pay?
I had so many different scenarios playing out in my head, and even though I anticipated some of the twists, I couldn’t settle on the outcome and I was kept guessing until the end. The author definitely did not disappoint with the conclusion of this book!
If you love dramatic plots, intrigue and enjoy crime novels with a bit of romance, then Megan Mitcham delivers with abundance in "WHO."
Thank you to Hidden Gems and the author, Megan Mitcham for a free ARC of this book in exchange for a voluntary, honest review.
Megan Mitcham’s latest novel, "WHO," delivers an intensely evocative story in this first book of her new Stalker series. With intelligently crafted words and an intriguing plot that has plenty of suspenseful twists, this novel made me want to keep on turning the pages. At first, I found the book a little slow and I was worried that the story wouldn’t live up to its promise, however, the pace soon picked up and I knew I was reading a book that I would come to really enjoy.
Billionaire Larkin Ashford is the fiercely independent owner of her fashion empire which was founded on the back of wedlock. When her company has the opportunity to go public, her Board of Directors won’t give her the green light, unless she agrees to marry. A series of threatening messages aren’t making her decision any easier. As she retreats to her rooftop hideaway to clear her head, she finds herself imprisoned in the strong arms of a mysterious chap who thinks she was about to jump…
Despite her friends’ warnings that her knight in shining armour could be her stalker, she can’t get him out of her head. Determined to find the truth, she searches for her mystery man and discovers a dark secret that could destroy everything that she holds dear. With her empire in danger, she’ll have to uncover the truth before her fortune and her life are reduced to tatters.
I loved the character of Larkin who is efficient, imaginative and extremely shrewd. She has deep-rooted issues with trust from her past and she doesn’t believe in love or long-term relationships. Her mother died when she was thirteen, and she has a tense relationship with her emotionally distant father. She does have a few really close friends that are supportive and loyal. I loved that Megan Mitcham introduced us to an abundance of wonderful characters, especially Larkin’s girlfriends, Genevieve, Marlis and Libby. Their exuberance collectively provides many moments of fun, support and girlie laughter.
Larkin’s high profile life is very much lived in the limelight and with major personal and business decisions needing to be made, who is causing so much trouble for her and what will be the price she has to pay?
I had so many different scenarios playing out in my head, and even though I anticipated some of the twists, I couldn’t settle on the outcome and I was kept guessing until the end. The author definitely did not disappoint with the conclusion of this book!
If you love dramatic plots, intrigue and enjoy crime novels with a bit of romance, then Megan Mitcham delivers with abundance in "WHO."
Thank you to Hidden Gems and the author, Megan Mitcham for a free ARC of this book in exchange for a voluntary, honest review.
Abandoned Things
10.0
Rate It
Book
Frankie is a fifth-year college student with a secret. He's the writer and creator of the popular...
MM Science Fiction Fantasy Enemies to Lovers Romance
Sarah (7799 KP) rated The Departed (2006) in Movies
Feb 20, 2021
The best gangster flick made to date
Film #15 on the 100 Movies List: The Departed
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
The world is ruled by Silvers, with their shining blood and abilities. The Red have no special powers are seen as lesser. They are relegated to perpetual poverty, while the Silbers live lives of luxury. But what happens when a Red manifests abilities in an arena filled with noble Silvers? They make her a future princess of course, but it's not the fairy tale it sounds like.
Mare is thrust into a world she never wished for and doesn't fit into. She is given no choice but to accept. There is much to learn about her abilities and how to control them. The one demand she made was to ensure the safety and well-being of her family. Her brothers are called home from the war, but not soon enough to save all of them. <spoiler> One was a member of a rebel/revolutionary group and was executed for it. </spoiler> This pushes Mare over the edge and she joins the rebel group, the Scarlet Guard.
It's intriguing to learn what each person has the ability to do. The control over water, manipulation of light, healing, mind-reading and more. But it's very off-putting and juvenile when the author refers to them as greenies or telkies. It sounds more like a two-year-old naming their stuffed bear Brownie or Fluffy than an author giving life to special abilities.
The world is not our own, so it would be nice to learn more about it. Unfortunately, Mare is not very learned and we must view the world through her lens. It would be fascinating to be given a history, geography and culture lesson from Julian in novella form. What does their domain look like? What about the surrounding kingdoms, their rulers, ruling abilities and geography? How did these new borders come to be? (It is mentioned that the borders were not always the way they are currently.) Overall, the world building is pretty good but could be improved (which it does later in the book.) The physical descriptions of the towns the royals pass on their way to the palace late in the story are good and allow the reader to immese themselves in the world more fully.
The princes are, unsurprisingly good people despite the harshness of the King and Queen. <spoiler> Or at least appear to be that way in the beginning, but it does not last. </spoiler> The future love interest(s) must be liked by the reader. Mare herself is harsh and quick-tempered by likable nonetheless. Though she has no choice in her future, she assures her family's well-being and that shows she has a good heart.
Of course, our protagonist catches the attention of not just one but two princes. The older and future King, Cal, wants to be a good ruler so he secretly ventures out in public to learn and experience his people outside the reports of advisors. He even decides to send a group of Silver soldiers to the front line and chooses to lead them. It may win the war, but it could also kill him. The younger, forever shadowed brother Maven believes that Reds and Silvers are equals. He even joins the Scarlet Guard to help propel change and spark a revolution.
Anyone can betray anyone.
The Scarlet Guard secrets Maven and Mare out of a play and transports them to another town just to have a conversation. Clearly the travel and discussion would take a significant amount of time and yet no one wonders where they are. The return trip and the play ending are just completely skipped. It was abrupt and didn't seem well-thought out.
The book ends with betrayal and bloodshed. But it also ends with a promise and the hope that not all is lost. It makes me want to begin the next book immeiate. Highly recommended book to fans of YA novels with good world building and character development that deal with monarchical rule and upheavals as well as people with special abilities.
Mare is thrust into a world she never wished for and doesn't fit into. She is given no choice but to accept. There is much to learn about her abilities and how to control them. The one demand she made was to ensure the safety and well-being of her family. Her brothers are called home from the war, but not soon enough to save all of them. <spoiler> One was a member of a rebel/revolutionary group and was executed for it. </spoiler> This pushes Mare over the edge and she joins the rebel group, the Scarlet Guard.
It's intriguing to learn what each person has the ability to do. The control over water, manipulation of light, healing, mind-reading and more. But it's very off-putting and juvenile when the author refers to them as greenies or telkies. It sounds more like a two-year-old naming their stuffed bear Brownie or Fluffy than an author giving life to special abilities.
The world is not our own, so it would be nice to learn more about it. Unfortunately, Mare is not very learned and we must view the world through her lens. It would be fascinating to be given a history, geography and culture lesson from Julian in novella form. What does their domain look like? What about the surrounding kingdoms, their rulers, ruling abilities and geography? How did these new borders come to be? (It is mentioned that the borders were not always the way they are currently.) Overall, the world building is pretty good but could be improved (which it does later in the book.) The physical descriptions of the towns the royals pass on their way to the palace late in the story are good and allow the reader to immese themselves in the world more fully.
The princes are, unsurprisingly good people despite the harshness of the King and Queen. <spoiler> Or at least appear to be that way in the beginning, but it does not last. </spoiler> The future love interest(s) must be liked by the reader. Mare herself is harsh and quick-tempered by likable nonetheless. Though she has no choice in her future, she assures her family's well-being and that shows she has a good heart.
Of course, our protagonist catches the attention of not just one but two princes. The older and future King, Cal, wants to be a good ruler so he secretly ventures out in public to learn and experience his people outside the reports of advisors. He even decides to send a group of Silver soldiers to the front line and chooses to lead them. It may win the war, but it could also kill him. The younger, forever shadowed brother Maven believes that Reds and Silvers are equals. He even joins the Scarlet Guard to help propel change and spark a revolution.
Anyone can betray anyone.
The Scarlet Guard secrets Maven and Mare out of a play and transports them to another town just to have a conversation. Clearly the travel and discussion would take a significant amount of time and yet no one wonders where they are. The return trip and the play ending are just completely skipped. It was abrupt and didn't seem well-thought out.
The book ends with betrayal and bloodshed. But it also ends with a promise and the hope that not all is lost. It makes me want to begin the next book immeiate. Highly recommended book to fans of YA novels with good world building and character development that deal with monarchical rule and upheavals as well as people with special abilities.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
In the not too distant future, the majority of the population are vampires and the world has been modified to adjust to the daylight. Remaining humans are "farmed" for blood, but the supply is running thin and the human race is on the verge of extinction. Dr. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a hematologist that works at Bromley Marks, the empire of Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), and is put in charge of finding a blood substitute, but has come up empty handed up until this point. Dalton is convinced that the vampire race has its work cut out for them with the blood supply being so low. He runs into a small group of humans one night at work and is eventually introduced to Lionel "Elvis" Cormac (Willem Dafoe), a former vampire who has something better than a blood substitute; a cure. Now Dalton finds himself risking everything on an experimental treatment that could be the key to saving mankind.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
