Search

Search only in certain items:

Will Shaksper's Secret
Will Shaksper's Secret
John Hole | 2019 | Thriller
2
2.0 (1 Ratings)
Book Rating
The concept of Will Shakespear not actually being the famous playwright that everyone knows him to be is interesting. (0 more)
. Sadly to say thought the title and description on the back promise an interesting read yet the book fails to deliver. (0 more)
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
As there is nothing to prove otherwise I have to label Will Shaksper’s Secret by John Hole as a work of fiction through the way it is written would almost suggest otherwise. Without a works-cited or a bibliography or anything saying it is even loosely based in fact I can not give this book any other category.

 In 1584 John Heminges is dismissed from his job largely due to sleeping with his boss’s wife. During his interactions with her, she robs him, leaving him penniless and alone. It is because of this that he ends up on the outside of a playhouse and saves Henry Condell thus connecting him to the theater. Within the preforming group he meats Christopher Marlowe and Will Shaksper.

 As it happens Christopher Marlowe gets into quite a bit of trouble for preaching atheism in a time when the church is struggling to begin with. This results in the threat of execution hanging over him. To protect him from this fate, other performers create a plan to make it appear that Christopher Marlowe is dead, allowing him to disappear. After he has been gone for some time Will Shaksper stars producing some wonder plays of amazing quality but they always come following a visit from a messenger.

 The concept of Will Shakespear not actually being the famous playwright that everyone knows him to be is interesting. Also, the circumstances that allowed to trade of writing from Christopher Marlowe to Will Shaksper was strange in a way that makes one question if things could actually have worked out that way. Sadly to say thought the title and description on the back promise an interesting read yet the book fails to deliver. The book itself ended up being very dry and the “blustering, boiserous journey” ended up dragging and slow.

 Adults who enjoy Shakspere both in language and historically would be the type of person ideally interested in this book. They dry style and language used best suits this book for those who are true fand of literary classics. Others may attempt to read it but might find the language a bit difficult. I rate this book 1 out of 4. The back of this book promises a much more interesting story than what it actually is. Besides being dry the plot is largely lost among the language. I understand what was being attempted and give the author credit for it, but I believe it largely missed the mark.

https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
https://facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
  
The Two Popes (2019)
The Two Popes (2019)
2019 | Biography, Comedy, Drama
Well Acted
In 2012, the conservative Pope Benedict - citing failing health - made the rare move of stepping down from the Papacy. He was, ultimately, replaced by the more Liberal Pope Francis. THE TWO POPES is a fictional account of a conversation that these two men had prior to Benedict's stepping down.

If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.

The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).

As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).

THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.

At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.

If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.

Letter Grade: B

7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
  
Laggies (2014)
Laggies (2014)
2014 | Drama
3
3.0 (1 Ratings)
Movie Rating
Laggies is a film that I walked into open minded and a little bit excited where they might take the storyline. As a millennial, I can relate to Keira Knightley’s character Megan as she is approaching 30 and she does not really have any clear direction in life. So when her boyfriend proposes, she freaks out and escapes for a week with her new 16 year old friend and her father. Believable, however rather than this film deciding to become something more akin to 2004’s Garden State, it instead abruptly turns in a “Hollywood” direction, badly.

While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.

As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.

However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.

In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.
  
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
1968 | Classics, Sci-Fi

"When I was seven, my parents were living again in Buenos Aires, and they were going to watch movies all the time. Maybe that day they could not leave me at home because there was no one to take care of me, so I remember we went with my sister and my parents to see 2001. And we were on the first row of the balcony, so we were in front of the movie. And the monkey in front of the monolith, the tunnel of light at the end of the movie, the fetus floating at the end of the movie — all that happening in front of my eyes was, for me, like my very first drug experience — or transcendental experience — ever. I was blown away by the images. And maybe it’s a fake memory that I have, but I remember — during the movie, at that very early age — it seems to me that I liked it much more than my parents, because even then, when I talked about it with my parents, they didn’t really care much about 2001. And for me it became like an obsession. Every summer, or every two summers, the movie was replaying in some theater in Buenos Aires. And I would go again and again and again to watch it. Also because, for me, it was the ultimate image of what the future world could become. And I thought that when I would be maybe 30-40 I would really be living in a world in which it would be easy to go to the moon or do things like that. And to this day when I rewatch that movie, I feel it’s still representing the future in a very accurate way. Besides that, the dresses are very pop art. Since then I’ve seen it like 40, 60 times and I never ever get tired of replaying it. And sometimes even for New Year’s Eve, instead of going out partying, I want to start the year in a good mood so I just stay and put the movie on my DVD player. I know that that movie also — because it’s very tricky — I would say later in my life when I was a teenager doing mushrooms or taking acid, mostly it’s because I wanted to have the same impact in my brain that that movie had when I was a kid. And you can clearly tell that Enter the Void — it’s not an homage, but it’s a movie extremely inspired by 2001. And since then, I collect every single poster of that movie, every single lobby card. I have an obsession. I want to possess that movie, which is totally unpossessable."

Source
  
Re-Animator (1985)
Re-Animator (1985)
1985 | Comedy, Horror, Sci-Fi
Jeffrey Combs (2 more)
Bruce Abbott
Stuart Gordan
Mad Man
Re-Animator- is frankenstien. But alot more gorer. So much gory, so much viloence, so much horror. Its different than frankenstein, but has a lot in common.

The plot: Loosely based on H P Lovecraft's classic horror tale, Herbert West is a young scientist who has a good head on his shoulders and another on the lab table in front of him.

Originally devised by Gordon as a theatrical stage production and later a half-hour television pilot, the television script was revised to become a feature film.

The film originally received an X rating, and was later edited to obtain an R rating for video rental stores.

The idea to make Re-Animator came from a discussion Stuart Gordon had with friends one night about vampire films. He felt that there were too many Dracula films and expressed a desire to see a Frankenstein film. Someone asked if he had read "Herbert West–Reanimator" by H. P. Lovecraft.

Originally, Gordon was going to adapt Lovecraft's story for the stage, but eventually decided along with writers Dennis Paoli and William Norris to make it as a half-hour television pilot. The story was set around the turn of the century, and they soon realized that it would be too expensive to recreate. They updated it to the present day in Chicago with the intention of using actors from the Organic Theater company. They were told that the half hour format was not salable and so they made it an hour, writing 13 episodes. Special effects technician Bob Greenberg, who had worked on John Carpenter's Dark Star, repeatedly told Gordon that the only market for horror was in feature films, and introduced him to producer Brian Yuzna. Gordon showed Yuzna the script for the pilot and the 12 additional episodes.

Yuzna described the film as having the "sort of shock sensibility of an Evil Dead with the production values of, hopefully, The Howling."

Naulin said that Re-Animator was the bloodiest film he had ever worked on. In the past, he had never used more than two gallons of blood on a film; on Re-Animator, he used 24 gallons.

The biggest makeup challenge in the film was the headless Dr. Hill zombie. Tony Doublin designed the mechanical effects and was faced with the problem of proportion once the 9–10 inches of the head were removed from the body. Each scene forced him to use a different technique. For example, one technique involved building an upper torso that actor David Gale could bend over and stick his head through so that it appeared to be the one that the walking corpse was carrying around.

Its excellent gory film
  
Godzilla vs. Kong (2021)
Godzilla vs. Kong (2021)
2021 | Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
Could have used more Kong versus Godzilla
If you are going to sit down and watch a movie that is entitled GODZILLA vs. KONG, you pretty much know what you are going to get, the highest your expectation should be is a “pretty fun B picture” with a giant Gorilla and a giant Lizard punching it out.

And…that is pretty much what you get…though the “laws of diminishing returns” is catching up to this franchise.

It all started with the reboot of GODZILLA in 2014 - a better than B “B Movie” that introduced audiences to Monarch and the Monsters they were following. This was followed up by the “very much a B Movie” KONG: SKULL ISLAND where Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman and a host of others run around, getting picked off one-by-one in an enjoyable romp and hopes remained high for the ongoing Kong/Godzilla “Universe”.

Unfortunately, 2019’s GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS was a step down and the franchise showed signs of weakness with weaker plot lines…even weaker human characters…and overblown special effects.

Next came this film, GODZILLA vs. KONG - it was supposed to be released in theaters last summer, but because of the pandemic made it’s theatrical release at the same time it was shown on HBO Max (where I viewed it) - and I’m glad they did that, for if I would have shelled out money in a movie theater to check out this mess, I would have been angry, indeed.

GODZILLA vs. KONG follows, unfortunately, the trend started by GODZILLA: KING OF THE THE MONSTERS in that it has overblown CGI action with very little in the way of coherent plot and characters that you couldn’t care less about. It’s a mess of a movie that strings together a slim plot to get from one CGI battle to another.

But…if it has CGI Giant Gorilla on CGI Radioactive Lizard fighting in it…it should be fine, right? Well…that’s where Director Adam Wingard (YOU’RE NEXT) really fails, for a movie called GODZILLA vs. KONG has very little Kong fighting Godzilla in it…so one cannot even get too excited by that.

To be fair to this film, it doesn’t try to be anything more than it is intended to be - a “B” flick with giant monsters fighting each other, but…it only manages to be a B- flick at best. So, feel free to kick back and watch the CGI action, you’ll enjoy most of it - just don’t spend too much time looking for plot or characters that you care about.

And…unfortunately…it’s making me care less and less about future sequels - or the future of the Kong/Godzilla Universe.

Letter Grade: B-

6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
  
40x40

Rodney Barnes (472 KP) Apr 5, 2021 (Updated Apr 5, 2021)

Take your review to the bank?..Wow...a lot of word vomit there...Watch all of the Japanese Godzilla movies and get back to me.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
1968 | Classics, Sci-Fi

"I kind of briefly threw The Shining out there, so that gets its own due, which means I can fall back on 2001, I suppose? I think that film speaks for itself, if I could explain that film to you, then I’d be… I don’t know what I’d be, one in ten who could explain it to you, but there was a followup called 2010 with Roy Scheider, which wasn’t a great film, but if it did anything, it helped explain 2001 a little bit, but 2001… I remember my father took me to see that in the theater, and that was so awe inspiring, and just to see where the imagination and creativity could go on screen as an 11-year-old kid, or however old I was. And to have seen that film over and over and over again and ask new questions every time I do, it’s been a pretty profound staple in my house for years. Then you get into all the conspiracy stuff. You attach the lunar landing — Kubrick shot the lunar landing stuff in it, and the rear screen projection that was used in the space scenes and in the ape scenes in the beginning, and how conspiracy theorists surmise that that’s what he used to shoot the moon landing. Did you hear all that? The theory is that NASA got a hold of the footage from 2001, saw it, and got Stanley Kubrick to shoot all the moon landing stuff in his studio and broadcast it across the country. Now, they’re not saying that we didn’t go to the moon, they’re saying that what the people in America saw was shot in a studio, because at that time we didn’t want to broadcast to the world what we may or may not have found on the moon — which actually makes more sense then it just being… It’s not, “We didn’t go.” We went. But we didn’t want the Russians to see, or we didn’t want Japan to see, or China to see what we’re discovering, you know? In case there’s anything there, or anything that we could weaponize, so Kubrick shot all this stuff in a sound stage, and that was the agreement. That’s why NASA gave Kubrick a super, super special space lens that he used for Barry Lyndon, because Barry Lyndon wasn’t shot with any lights. It was all natural light… candles, or sunlight, or whatever, so he used the lens, and that’s what allowed the light to get in for the film process, but there’s so many layers to the Kubrick stuff and I just, as a conspiracy theory fan, I like to have that in the back of my brain while I’m watching those films."

Source
  
40x40

Gaspar Noe recommended Eraserhead (1977) in Movies (curated)

 
Eraserhead (1977)
Eraserhead (1977)
1977 | Drama, Horror

"When Eraserhead came out in France, it came out with the weird title, The Head to Erase. It was in French. I remember I was reading my parents’ newspaper — it was a socialist newspaper — and there was a whole page of how much this famous film critic didn’t like the movie. He was really trashing the movie. But the way he was saying it was very awful, disgusting, it made me — I was a 14 or 15 year old kid — want to go to the other side of the city and see it. And then it was like my own secret. And I went there. And I loved the movie so much, that I believe I went to see it four times in one month. Then after two weeks it moved to another city and I went to see it again in a screening with my friend. Then maybe one year later, it was replaying near my house at the midnight screening, so I went again with another friend. And for me that was the confirmation that cinema could also portray your inner world, that cinema could portray dreams and nightmares. And I hadn’t seen, at that time Un Chien Andalou by [Luis] Buñuel but Un Chien Andalou is one of the rare movies that is written in a mental language, a dreamt language. Eraserhead is another one. Kubrick said once that he regrets he didn’t have the idea to do that movie. In any case, it had such a strong impact on me that I would say Eraserhead — it made me get into film school two years later. Maybe it was a mix of 2001 and Eraserhead. I don’t know how many times I saw Eraserhead in the movie theater, but I guess it was maybe 15 times. I had an addiction to this movie, which is the kind of addiction kids can have to their mother telling them a story. You want to listen to the same story over and over, and have a hypnotic feeling and relaxing feeling. It created some kind of relaxing feeling in me. That I would enjoy all these movies — that are nightmarish– as if it were a dream, especially when the girl comes out saying everything is fine in heaven. There’s a fact also that David Lynch made that movie with almost no money over a period of five years. Then when I was doing I Stand Alone, I had a lot of money issues. I had problems completing the movie, then doing the editing, also. All the time I had in mind that David Lynch did that movie in five years. And I said well, “Maybe it will take me 10 years to finish the movie. If it takes ten years I’ll do it and I shouldn’t worry.”"

Source
  
Wind River (2017)
Wind River (2017)
2017 | Action, Crime, Mystery
Between Sicario and Hell or High Water (both of which landed on my year-end best lists for 2015 and 2016 respectively), Taylor Sheridan has already proven to be an incredible talent at crafting slow-burning thrillers that also serve as in-depth character studies. His new film, third as a screenwriter and second as a director, may move at quite a faster pace than his previous two screenplays, but it is no less accomplished, either in plot or in character development. Though some may leave the theater feeling that they haven’t seen anything new, and they’d be right to as there isn’t anything particularly flashy or unique in the direction or cinematography, Wind River however finds its strength in its simplicity. It’s a simple story concerning the death of a young girl on a Wyoming reservation, of the tracker (Jeremy Renner) for whom the circumstance strikes too close to home, and of the presumably untested FBI agent (Elizabeth Olsen) forced to face the darker side of her chosen profession.

 

For Jeremy Renner, Wind River marks a career best. He displays restraint in a role that others would have played far too arrogantly and when he lets us in to share in his character’s painful past, the melodrama inherent in the dialogue is delivered with dignity and humility. Complimenting his performance beautifully is Gil Birmingham as Martin, the father of the murdered girl. Much like his work opposite Jeff Bridges in Hell or High Water, his scenes with Renner are the highlight of the film. Every line he delivers reverberates with truth and with the weight of losing of two children, one whose life is thrown away to drug use and one to an untimely, mysterious death. Veteran actor and longtime favorite of mine, Graham Greene is also on hand to give a competent turn as the local sheriff who in equal measures doles out tension-relieving humor as well as reminding us of the gravity of a bleak situation.

 

In amongst a predominately-male cast, Elizabeth Olsen shines. This film was an undoubtedly a tough task, as her character is given no soft options, and her performance gave me cause to reflect on a young Jodie Foster in The Silence of the Lambs. I don’t just draw this comparison because of the fact they both play young agents thrust into a situation beyond their level of experience, but because of the scenes in these films where they are called upon to confidently take command of a room full of men and to show great physicality in moments of unexpected violence. It’s another top mark in her filmography comparable to her breakout in Martha Marcy May Marlene and hopefully, in-between bouts of this bloated Marvel Cinematic Universe nonsense, we’ll continue to see her in roles of some substance.
  
Wonder Woman (2017)
Wonder Woman (2017)
2017 | Action, Fantasy, War
The extent of my knowledge of Wonder Woman comes from vague memories of the TV show with Lynda Carter in the 70s and the Super Friends cartoon in the early 80s. So I knew she was an Amazon princess from Paradise Island who flew an invisible plane. I may have been Wonder Woman for Halloween back when you stuck your arms through a plastic sheet with Wonder Woman’s torso painted on it, that tied at the neck like a cheap, hospital gown, with a mask with eyes cutout and a mouth you really couldn’t breathe through. So really, I knew OF her, but I never really actually knew much about Wonder Woman.

Fast forward some 40 years later and I’m in a theater learning Diana is the fiercely spirited daughter of Queen Hippolyta who sculpted her from clay and was brought to life by Zeus. Wait. What? Tell me more! She’s raised on the secluded island of Themyscira where, thanks to her aunt Antiope’s training, Diana develops extraordinary skill in combat.

Those skills come in handy when Steve Trevor somehow crashes through the protective barrier surrounding Themyscira, while trying to escape from the Germans. Suddenly made aware of an outside world, Diana decides to leave Themyscira with Trevor for war-torn Europe believing she must help stop the great war.

Gal Gadot portrays Wonder Woman as a strong-willed, worldly but still naïve force to reckon with. Chris Pine plays a wiley American spy who isn’t immune to Diana’s beauty but remains respectful of the innocence he can see behind her conviction. Together they team up with a motley crew of unlikely heroes to bring down a horrific German, whom Diana believes is Ares, the God of War, reborn.

I wasn’t sure what kept me more riveted, the storyline, the chemistry between Gadot and Pine,or Wonder Woman’s physical beauty and prowess. I can tell you that I never heard a screener audience cheer for Batman or Superman like they did for Wonder Woman, just at the sight of the determined superhero slowly walking towards battle, prompted in part by the pounding opening wails of Wonder Woman’s theme music.

Wonder Woman is an origin story well-told, something I really can’t say for the previous Justice League movies. Where Man of Steel, Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad have left me “meh” for future DC movies, Wonder Woman left me hopeful for Justice League and future DC Extended Universe movies. I hope the directors of DCEU movies take some lessons from Wonder Woman’s director, Patty Jenkins. Simply put, we want to root for a multi-dimensional superhero with a story we can easily follow and get behind. In other words, be like Wonder Woman.