Search
Search results
Melanie Caldicott (6 KP) rated The Lost Apothecary in Books
Apr 29, 2021
Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for the ARe-copy in exchange for this honest review. You can also read my review on my blog - https:roamingthroughbooks.wordpress.com
The Lost Apothecary by Sarah Penner is a novel which switches between the storylines of a female apothecary in the 1790s who sells poisons to women to kill men who have wronged them and the present day, in which Caroline happens upon a clue which leads her to investigate the apothecary’s story.
Well, the idea of an apothecary dispensing poison for women to use for murder was enticing to say the least. This book had the potential to weave a thought-provoking, adventurous tale, developing themes about womanhood, oppression and doing evil for good. Sadly, for me it did not quite meet the mark.
The narratives switch between three characters, Caroline, our present-day historian, Nella, the apothecary, and Eliza, a servant girl who becomes friends with Nella over the course of the book.
As I said, I was expecting this novel to grapple with challenging themes, which could have been very emotive and dark. Yet, it turned out to be just a bland bit of light fiction never dwelling on anything for too long, skimming over the surface of most of the characters, their motives and their reactions and lacking depth on any of the parallel-running plotlines.
It is surprising how a book surrounding multiple murders, historical medicine and herbalism and women trapped in marriages with infidels, letches and rapists could be quite so vanilla. It was a pleasant enough read, but lacked the substance I was hoping for.
I found Nella, the apothecary to be a bit of an enigma. We do learn about her back story and gain some insight into her motives for dispensing the poisons. However, for a woman who was resourceful enough to construct the whole clandestine operation we meet her in a weakened state and I grew frustrated with how she seemed to fall into an oblivious kind of dream-like manner becoming swept along by circumstance with no clear influence on the events or people around her.
Eliza, was a naïve girl who met Nella whilst running an errand for her mistress. It is not really clear why the friendship between Nella and Eliza develops, it seems to be more for the convenience of the plot than due to real concrete reasoning. However, an intimacy develops between them which has the potential to bring new colour to the characters. But yet again, Penner seems to skim the surface of going to any depths and I was left feeling robbed of any insight into the emotional and kindred aspects of their friendship.
Finally, Caroline’s story in the present day brought a different perspective to the themes of womanhood running through this book. She parallels the wronged women of the 18th century by escaping to London on a trip she was supposed to take with her husband to celebrate their tenth wedding anniversary, but was instead travelling alone having discovered her husband had been having an affair.
I initially enjoyed Caroline’s historical investigations as they took her to The British Library and researching documents and newspapers there. As an avid genealogist I appreciated the details Penner gives about the sources of Caroline’s research and the challenges of finding the truth from historical documents.
Yet, again her story became somewhat contrived. It seemed unlikely that she would make some of the discoveries she did and her investigation became constructed around coincidence and unrealistic serendipity. Even the parallel storylines surrounding her relationship and those from the apothecary’s timeline seemed somewhat silly and phoney.
For me, the conclusion of the book yet again did not fully reconcile itself and therefore left me unmoved and feeling somewhat apathetic about the ending and the novel as a whole.
The Lost Apothecary by Sarah Penner is a novel which switches between the storylines of a female apothecary in the 1790s who sells poisons to women to kill men who have wronged them and the present day, in which Caroline happens upon a clue which leads her to investigate the apothecary’s story.
Well, the idea of an apothecary dispensing poison for women to use for murder was enticing to say the least. This book had the potential to weave a thought-provoking, adventurous tale, developing themes about womanhood, oppression and doing evil for good. Sadly, for me it did not quite meet the mark.
The narratives switch between three characters, Caroline, our present-day historian, Nella, the apothecary, and Eliza, a servant girl who becomes friends with Nella over the course of the book.
As I said, I was expecting this novel to grapple with challenging themes, which could have been very emotive and dark. Yet, it turned out to be just a bland bit of light fiction never dwelling on anything for too long, skimming over the surface of most of the characters, their motives and their reactions and lacking depth on any of the parallel-running plotlines.
It is surprising how a book surrounding multiple murders, historical medicine and herbalism and women trapped in marriages with infidels, letches and rapists could be quite so vanilla. It was a pleasant enough read, but lacked the substance I was hoping for.
I found Nella, the apothecary to be a bit of an enigma. We do learn about her back story and gain some insight into her motives for dispensing the poisons. However, for a woman who was resourceful enough to construct the whole clandestine operation we meet her in a weakened state and I grew frustrated with how she seemed to fall into an oblivious kind of dream-like manner becoming swept along by circumstance with no clear influence on the events or people around her.
Eliza, was a naïve girl who met Nella whilst running an errand for her mistress. It is not really clear why the friendship between Nella and Eliza develops, it seems to be more for the convenience of the plot than due to real concrete reasoning. However, an intimacy develops between them which has the potential to bring new colour to the characters. But yet again, Penner seems to skim the surface of going to any depths and I was left feeling robbed of any insight into the emotional and kindred aspects of their friendship.
Finally, Caroline’s story in the present day brought a different perspective to the themes of womanhood running through this book. She parallels the wronged women of the 18th century by escaping to London on a trip she was supposed to take with her husband to celebrate their tenth wedding anniversary, but was instead travelling alone having discovered her husband had been having an affair.
I initially enjoyed Caroline’s historical investigations as they took her to The British Library and researching documents and newspapers there. As an avid genealogist I appreciated the details Penner gives about the sources of Caroline’s research and the challenges of finding the truth from historical documents.
Yet, again her story became somewhat contrived. It seemed unlikely that she would make some of the discoveries she did and her investigation became constructed around coincidence and unrealistic serendipity. Even the parallel storylines surrounding her relationship and those from the apothecary’s timeline seemed somewhat silly and phoney.
For me, the conclusion of the book yet again did not fully reconcile itself and therefore left me unmoved and feeling somewhat apathetic about the ending and the novel as a whole.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Willy's Wonderland (2021) in Movies
Mar 20, 2021
Could’ve been so much better
If you’ve seen the trailer for Willy’s Wonderland, you were no doubt wondering what on earth your eyes had just been witness to, and I’m afraid the full film doesn’t get any less demented. Willy’s Wonderland is a 2021 horror comedy from director Kevin Lewis that is every bit a modern day B-movie, complete with cheesy script and questionable acting. On paper it sounds like it should be entertainingly bad but silly, but unfortunately in reality it’s just bad.
Willy’s Wonderland follows a drifter (Nicolas Cage) who experiences car troubles on his way cross country, and is tricked into becoming a janitor overnight for the condemned Willy’s Wonderland to pay off his car repairs. Willy’s is a kids restaurant slash indoor play area themed around Willy the weasel and his animatronic friends, including a crocodile, chameleon, gorilla and ostrich. However Willy’s isn’t just your ordinary run down restaurant as it has a dark and horrific history involving murderers, criminals and satanic rituals. Now the friendly animatronic creatures have taken on a murderous life of their own and in a bid to appease them, the town elders (including the sheriff played by Beth Grant) have turned to tricking people travelling through into Willy’s to act as human sacrifices. Unfortunately the townsfolk don’t get quite what they expected with Cage’s unnamed drifter, who alongside local girl Liv (Emily Tosta), gives the demonic creatures a lot more than they bargained for.
I have been dying to watch this film since seeing the trailer. It looked like it’d be absolutely crazy silliness from start to finish and one of those films that are so bad they’re good. But as much as I wanted to like this, I feel like it fell short from what was promised. The first major problem is that it’s meant to be a horror comedy, but there was little humour on offer and the only time I really found myself laughing was at the sheer bizarreness of this entire film. Horror-wise there is a decent amount of blood and gore, but some of it looks badly done and unrealistic and there’s little to be scared of here either. Towards the start of the film there are a few creepy scenes with the animatronic animals, but as the story progresses the scares are lost and this is where the film suffers. It is possible to make a film that’s scary, funny and good (Cabin in the Woods is a shining example), but sadly Willy’s Wonderland doesn’t pull it off.
The fight scenes are lost due to the crazy artistic and surreal style of camera work, meaning you barely have a clue what’s going on and the backing music to accompany these fight scenes doesn’t always work either. And then there’s Nicolas Cage. For some unknown reason, they’ve decided to make his character completely mute with absolutely no dialogue whatsoever. This works in the first few scenes, but as the story unfolds you find yourself crying out for him to say something, anything. If any film was suitable for Cage’s signature crazy eyed overacting, it’s this one and not utilising this is criminal. What were they thinking?! The script isn’t great and the majority of characters are entirely wasted and one dimensional, even for a horror film, with only Emily Tosta coming out of this relatively unscathed, so a bit of Cage’s acting could’ve really helped make this a lot more entertaining.
Willy’s Wonderland had a lot of promise, with an interesting and crazy B-movie horror storyline. However it’s the execution which has let it down, as it’s severely lacking in horror or comedy and doesn’t make use of the cast or promising story. It’s a shame as it’s semi enjoyable as is, but could’ve been so much better!
Willy’s Wonderland follows a drifter (Nicolas Cage) who experiences car troubles on his way cross country, and is tricked into becoming a janitor overnight for the condemned Willy’s Wonderland to pay off his car repairs. Willy’s is a kids restaurant slash indoor play area themed around Willy the weasel and his animatronic friends, including a crocodile, chameleon, gorilla and ostrich. However Willy’s isn’t just your ordinary run down restaurant as it has a dark and horrific history involving murderers, criminals and satanic rituals. Now the friendly animatronic creatures have taken on a murderous life of their own and in a bid to appease them, the town elders (including the sheriff played by Beth Grant) have turned to tricking people travelling through into Willy’s to act as human sacrifices. Unfortunately the townsfolk don’t get quite what they expected with Cage’s unnamed drifter, who alongside local girl Liv (Emily Tosta), gives the demonic creatures a lot more than they bargained for.
I have been dying to watch this film since seeing the trailer. It looked like it’d be absolutely crazy silliness from start to finish and one of those films that are so bad they’re good. But as much as I wanted to like this, I feel like it fell short from what was promised. The first major problem is that it’s meant to be a horror comedy, but there was little humour on offer and the only time I really found myself laughing was at the sheer bizarreness of this entire film. Horror-wise there is a decent amount of blood and gore, but some of it looks badly done and unrealistic and there’s little to be scared of here either. Towards the start of the film there are a few creepy scenes with the animatronic animals, but as the story progresses the scares are lost and this is where the film suffers. It is possible to make a film that’s scary, funny and good (Cabin in the Woods is a shining example), but sadly Willy’s Wonderland doesn’t pull it off.
The fight scenes are lost due to the crazy artistic and surreal style of camera work, meaning you barely have a clue what’s going on and the backing music to accompany these fight scenes doesn’t always work either. And then there’s Nicolas Cage. For some unknown reason, they’ve decided to make his character completely mute with absolutely no dialogue whatsoever. This works in the first few scenes, but as the story unfolds you find yourself crying out for him to say something, anything. If any film was suitable for Cage’s signature crazy eyed overacting, it’s this one and not utilising this is criminal. What were they thinking?! The script isn’t great and the majority of characters are entirely wasted and one dimensional, even for a horror film, with only Emily Tosta coming out of this relatively unscathed, so a bit of Cage’s acting could’ve really helped make this a lot more entertaining.
Willy’s Wonderland had a lot of promise, with an interesting and crazy B-movie horror storyline. However it’s the execution which has let it down, as it’s severely lacking in horror or comedy and doesn’t make use of the cast or promising story. It’s a shame as it’s semi enjoyable as is, but could’ve been so much better!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Green Knight (2020) in Movies
Aug 6, 2021
Interesting...Intriguing...and Weird
You have 2 choices when choosing to view the Arthurian tale THE GREEN KNIGHT.
1). Brush up on the 14th Century tale (writer unknown) about Sir Gawain (of Knights of the Round Table fame) and The Green Knight
2). Go in “blind” and let the film wash over you.
I did #2 and while I got the “gist” of what was going on, I missed some of the subtleties (or the attempted subtleties) that I now know since I went on-line and brushed up on the story/poem (no, I did not read the 14th century poem - a google search synopsis of plot of the poem was sufficient).
Starring Dev Patel (more on him later) THE GREEN KNIGHT tells the story of a would-be Knight of the Round Table, Gawain, who accepts a challenge of THE GREEN KNIGHT and now must stand up to the consequence of his deeds while heading off on a quest.
Dev Patel (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) has really grown into a fine actor and he is perfectly cast as the courage-challenged Gawain. He walks through this film with a slight look of fear in his eyes and I was finding myself yelling at him (in my head) to “stand up and do what’s right” (which is the point of the film/story) when he would make the wrong decision.
Alicia Vikander (who I have not seen on screen since 2018’s TOMB RAIDER) and Joel Edgerton (LOVING) are 2 of the people that Gawain meets along the way and they bring strength and star power to the middle part of this film - they came along at an opportune time, for this film was beginning to sag under it’s own weight at that point, but these 2 help propel Gawain (and the film) to the climax.
Director David Lowery (A GHOST STORY) has crafted a fantastical film that reminded me very much of the work of Terry Gilliam - and I mean that as a compliment. He heightens every scene with imagery that’s just “off” (again, I mean that as a compliment) that symbolizes the “quest” that Gawain is on.
He also does something that will either encourage or discourage a viewer (and that is the strength and weakness of this film) - he explains nothing.
For example…at the beginning, Gawain is sitting at a round table with a King and Queen and a bunch of other Knights (or would be Knights). One would assume that this is King Arthur, Guinevere and the Knights of the Round Table, but Lowery never calls them by name. “The King” pulls out his sword and hands it to Gawain for his contest with the Green Knight. The crowd reacts with gasps - one would assume that this is the fable sword Excaliber, but it is never stated.
So…knowing these things (and some of the other aspects of the Gawain) story, might further enrich this experience, but Lowery chooses to not spoon feed the audience and since I did not really know the Gawain story, I just sat back and enjoyed the quest, the imagery, the weirdness (and there is some VERY weird moments - I still don’t know what to make of the scene with the Giants) and was rewarded with a film experience that is rare nowadays, one that just unfurls without telescoping what is happening or what is to come.
This film is not for everyone - it does have a rather languid pace to it - but for those of you that can sit in the stillness, marvel at the imagery and revel in the weirdness/unknown, then THE GREEN KNIGHT is, ultimately, a rewarding film experience - one that (now that I know the story) am eager to revisit.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
1). Brush up on the 14th Century tale (writer unknown) about Sir Gawain (of Knights of the Round Table fame) and The Green Knight
2). Go in “blind” and let the film wash over you.
I did #2 and while I got the “gist” of what was going on, I missed some of the subtleties (or the attempted subtleties) that I now know since I went on-line and brushed up on the story/poem (no, I did not read the 14th century poem - a google search synopsis of plot of the poem was sufficient).
Starring Dev Patel (more on him later) THE GREEN KNIGHT tells the story of a would-be Knight of the Round Table, Gawain, who accepts a challenge of THE GREEN KNIGHT and now must stand up to the consequence of his deeds while heading off on a quest.
Dev Patel (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) has really grown into a fine actor and he is perfectly cast as the courage-challenged Gawain. He walks through this film with a slight look of fear in his eyes and I was finding myself yelling at him (in my head) to “stand up and do what’s right” (which is the point of the film/story) when he would make the wrong decision.
Alicia Vikander (who I have not seen on screen since 2018’s TOMB RAIDER) and Joel Edgerton (LOVING) are 2 of the people that Gawain meets along the way and they bring strength and star power to the middle part of this film - they came along at an opportune time, for this film was beginning to sag under it’s own weight at that point, but these 2 help propel Gawain (and the film) to the climax.
Director David Lowery (A GHOST STORY) has crafted a fantastical film that reminded me very much of the work of Terry Gilliam - and I mean that as a compliment. He heightens every scene with imagery that’s just “off” (again, I mean that as a compliment) that symbolizes the “quest” that Gawain is on.
He also does something that will either encourage or discourage a viewer (and that is the strength and weakness of this film) - he explains nothing.
For example…at the beginning, Gawain is sitting at a round table with a King and Queen and a bunch of other Knights (or would be Knights). One would assume that this is King Arthur, Guinevere and the Knights of the Round Table, but Lowery never calls them by name. “The King” pulls out his sword and hands it to Gawain for his contest with the Green Knight. The crowd reacts with gasps - one would assume that this is the fable sword Excaliber, but it is never stated.
So…knowing these things (and some of the other aspects of the Gawain) story, might further enrich this experience, but Lowery chooses to not spoon feed the audience and since I did not really know the Gawain story, I just sat back and enjoyed the quest, the imagery, the weirdness (and there is some VERY weird moments - I still don’t know what to make of the scene with the Giants) and was rewarded with a film experience that is rare nowadays, one that just unfurls without telescoping what is happening or what is to come.
This film is not for everyone - it does have a rather languid pace to it - but for those of you that can sit in the stillness, marvel at the imagery and revel in the weirdness/unknown, then THE GREEN KNIGHT is, ultimately, a rewarding film experience - one that (now that I know the story) am eager to revisit.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Nine in Books
Sep 13, 2020
I've been a fan of Rachelle Dekker ever since I read The Girl Behind the Red Rope. When I saw that Rachelle Dekker had released a new book entitled Nine, I knew it was a book that I needed to read. I was so glad I picked this book up!
I felt that the plot to Nine was solid. Zoe Johnson is busy working at her mundane job as a waitress when a young 17 year old girl shows up. From the get go, Zoe is protective of this young girl named Lucy who appears naive, scared, confused, and willing to trust anyone. However, trying to protect Lucy will have a high cost as Lucy is much more than she appears to be.
I read Nine in about a day. The pacing was so spot on that I didn't want to put this book down. The action starts out right in the first chapter and just carries on throughout the book. From the very first page, I was sucked into this suspenseful world Rachelle Dekker had masterfully created. Though it does have some similarities with the video game/movie Resident Evil (sans zombies), Dekker did a fantastic job at making the plot line feel original although it's been done many times before. There are a few plot twists including one that links back to The Girl Behind the Red Rope which I was very excited to read about! Yes, some of the plot twists are a bit predictable, but Nine is a very interesting story nonetheless.
I have to gush about the characters in Nine now. Dekker did an amazing job making her characters feel fleshed out. I felt as if the characters in Nine were people I actually knew in real life; that's how realistic these characters were written. I loved Zoe's character. Even though she had a sad story and baggage of her own, it was refreshing to see her actually put her trust and care about someone else. I will say I would have liked to know more about her brother Stephen and read more in detail about what happened to him. Perhaps Dekker will write a story about Stephen another time. Anyway, Zoe was an amazing character, and I could always feel what she felt from elation to deep sadness and more. Although Olivia isn't in the book very much, I also loved Olivia and how much she sacrificed for a certain experiment. Lucy was my favorite character, and it was interesting to be able to see her thought process starting in part two of Nine. Reading about her internal struggle with how she was raised versus who she wanted to be felt very emotional to me. We have all had that struggle with ourselves to become a better version of ourself. Seeley was a bit of a wild card. Sometimes I loved him, and other times I hated him although I could understand why he was doing what he did (not that it was justified for most of it). I would have hated to have the same ultimatum given to me as Hammon gave Seeley. Even all the minor characters (especially McCoy) I really enjoyed. Every character added to the story and fleshed it out even more.
Trigger warnings for Nine include violence (including gun violence), torture, and murder.
Overall, Nine is an emotional story with a positive message that really makes you think about how you can change no matter your given circumstances. Nine would make a fantastic movie or tv series, and I know I would watch it should anyone ever do that. I would definitely recommend Nine by Rachelle Dekker to those aged 16+ that love highly suspenseful stories that include a positive message.
--
(A special thank you to Revell for providing me with a paperback of Nine by Rachelle Dekker in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I felt that the plot to Nine was solid. Zoe Johnson is busy working at her mundane job as a waitress when a young 17 year old girl shows up. From the get go, Zoe is protective of this young girl named Lucy who appears naive, scared, confused, and willing to trust anyone. However, trying to protect Lucy will have a high cost as Lucy is much more than she appears to be.
I read Nine in about a day. The pacing was so spot on that I didn't want to put this book down. The action starts out right in the first chapter and just carries on throughout the book. From the very first page, I was sucked into this suspenseful world Rachelle Dekker had masterfully created. Though it does have some similarities with the video game/movie Resident Evil (sans zombies), Dekker did a fantastic job at making the plot line feel original although it's been done many times before. There are a few plot twists including one that links back to The Girl Behind the Red Rope which I was very excited to read about! Yes, some of the plot twists are a bit predictable, but Nine is a very interesting story nonetheless.
I have to gush about the characters in Nine now. Dekker did an amazing job making her characters feel fleshed out. I felt as if the characters in Nine were people I actually knew in real life; that's how realistic these characters were written. I loved Zoe's character. Even though she had a sad story and baggage of her own, it was refreshing to see her actually put her trust and care about someone else. I will say I would have liked to know more about her brother Stephen and read more in detail about what happened to him. Perhaps Dekker will write a story about Stephen another time. Anyway, Zoe was an amazing character, and I could always feel what she felt from elation to deep sadness and more. Although Olivia isn't in the book very much, I also loved Olivia and how much she sacrificed for a certain experiment. Lucy was my favorite character, and it was interesting to be able to see her thought process starting in part two of Nine. Reading about her internal struggle with how she was raised versus who she wanted to be felt very emotional to me. We have all had that struggle with ourselves to become a better version of ourself. Seeley was a bit of a wild card. Sometimes I loved him, and other times I hated him although I could understand why he was doing what he did (not that it was justified for most of it). I would have hated to have the same ultimatum given to me as Hammon gave Seeley. Even all the minor characters (especially McCoy) I really enjoyed. Every character added to the story and fleshed it out even more.
Trigger warnings for Nine include violence (including gun violence), torture, and murder.
Overall, Nine is an emotional story with a positive message that really makes you think about how you can change no matter your given circumstances. Nine would make a fantastic movie or tv series, and I know I would watch it should anyone ever do that. I would definitely recommend Nine by Rachelle Dekker to those aged 16+ that love highly suspenseful stories that include a positive message.
--
(A special thank you to Revell for providing me with a paperback of Nine by Rachelle Dekker in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Chief Zabu (2016) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
“Chief Zabu” Captures 80s America With A Comedic Twist
Greetings & Salutations Everyone!
It’s perplexing how so very few people seem to comprehend the grand efforts that go into the production of a movie. The numerous individuals involved, the various disciplines and skill sets, the length of production time, etc. The film I have the good fortune to share with you today has essentially been on one of the longest journeys I’ve ever heard of. A journey so lengthy in scope, it was the subject of a recurring gag during the tenure of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. 30 years. That’s right. It actually didn’t take 30 years to literally make/film the movie. Production for the film began in 1986. But due to an unforeseen series of circumstances, production was unable to be completed until 2016. Now if you’re a ‘die hard disciple’ of MST3K, obligations don’t matter. The fact that they thought enough of it to make it the subject of a running joke is advertisement enough to make you want to see the film. So … without further adieu I present for your consideration, “Chief Zabu”
“Chief Zabu” is a socio-political comedy that takes place primarily in New York during the mid-1980s and follows a determined New York businessman who believes his dreams of wealth and political power can be secured by cornering the economic future of a newly independent Polynesian country. The film was directed, produced, and written by Zack Norman (credited as Howard Zuker) and Neil Cohen. The film stars Allen Garfield, Zack Norman, Manu Tupou, Ed Lauter, Marianna Hill, Allan Arbus, Harsh Nayyar, Joseph Warren, Betty Karlen, Tom Nardini, Charles Siegal, Shirley Stoler, Lucianne Buchanan, and Ferdinand Mayne.
Chief Henri Zabu (Tupou) is the leader of a Polynesian country who has been thrust into the world of politics and has journeyed to New York City to secure recognition for his country from the United Nations. Secretly, he has come to hopefully secure investors and the finical backing to kickstart his country’s economy and infrastructure. Ben Sydney (Garfield) and his longtime friend and partner Sammy Brooks (Norman), are a pair of devious and crafty New York realtors going from one mediocre deal to the next while fantasizing about that ‘deal of a lifetime’ that will one day hopefully ‘find them’. It does. Sort of. Through a series of almost unreal interactions with a series of characters ranging from con artists to wealthy individuals who would likely push a family member into a pool if properly motivated, Ben and Sammy believe they’ve got the political and finance connections to make their ambitions a reality. And then, just when things are going so well … the proverbial rug looks as though it’s going to get pulled out from under them. So it would seem. New York realtors with political aspirations and possibly questionable morals. Does this ring any bells anyone?
Setting aside the comedic aspects of the film, it’s a fictional yet not unrealistic representation some of the political and economic influences that surrounded the arena of the United Nations in the mid to late 80’s. An interesting side story that depicts how first world nations would seize the opportunity to try and capitalize on newly independent or weaker nations by securing footholds in their economic and political power bases. Thereby funneling a nation’s resources and wealth away from those nations.
In the end, the film captures the 80’s in America much for what it was with a comedic twist. Celebrity worship, political backstabbing, and materialism. The only other film I can think of off the top of my head that did better would be ‘American Psycho’. Thankfully and perhaps gratefully, ‘Chief Zabu’ accomplished this WITHOUT the excessive and unprecedented depictions of violence. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The only way to one-up the movie is if we could take it back in time and give it the ‘MST3K’ treatment.
It’s perplexing how so very few people seem to comprehend the grand efforts that go into the production of a movie. The numerous individuals involved, the various disciplines and skill sets, the length of production time, etc. The film I have the good fortune to share with you today has essentially been on one of the longest journeys I’ve ever heard of. A journey so lengthy in scope, it was the subject of a recurring gag during the tenure of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. 30 years. That’s right. It actually didn’t take 30 years to literally make/film the movie. Production for the film began in 1986. But due to an unforeseen series of circumstances, production was unable to be completed until 2016. Now if you’re a ‘die hard disciple’ of MST3K, obligations don’t matter. The fact that they thought enough of it to make it the subject of a running joke is advertisement enough to make you want to see the film. So … without further adieu I present for your consideration, “Chief Zabu”
“Chief Zabu” is a socio-political comedy that takes place primarily in New York during the mid-1980s and follows a determined New York businessman who believes his dreams of wealth and political power can be secured by cornering the economic future of a newly independent Polynesian country. The film was directed, produced, and written by Zack Norman (credited as Howard Zuker) and Neil Cohen. The film stars Allen Garfield, Zack Norman, Manu Tupou, Ed Lauter, Marianna Hill, Allan Arbus, Harsh Nayyar, Joseph Warren, Betty Karlen, Tom Nardini, Charles Siegal, Shirley Stoler, Lucianne Buchanan, and Ferdinand Mayne.
Chief Henri Zabu (Tupou) is the leader of a Polynesian country who has been thrust into the world of politics and has journeyed to New York City to secure recognition for his country from the United Nations. Secretly, he has come to hopefully secure investors and the finical backing to kickstart his country’s economy and infrastructure. Ben Sydney (Garfield) and his longtime friend and partner Sammy Brooks (Norman), are a pair of devious and crafty New York realtors going from one mediocre deal to the next while fantasizing about that ‘deal of a lifetime’ that will one day hopefully ‘find them’. It does. Sort of. Through a series of almost unreal interactions with a series of characters ranging from con artists to wealthy individuals who would likely push a family member into a pool if properly motivated, Ben and Sammy believe they’ve got the political and finance connections to make their ambitions a reality. And then, just when things are going so well … the proverbial rug looks as though it’s going to get pulled out from under them. So it would seem. New York realtors with political aspirations and possibly questionable morals. Does this ring any bells anyone?
Setting aside the comedic aspects of the film, it’s a fictional yet not unrealistic representation some of the political and economic influences that surrounded the arena of the United Nations in the mid to late 80’s. An interesting side story that depicts how first world nations would seize the opportunity to try and capitalize on newly independent or weaker nations by securing footholds in their economic and political power bases. Thereby funneling a nation’s resources and wealth away from those nations.
In the end, the film captures the 80’s in America much for what it was with a comedic twist. Celebrity worship, political backstabbing, and materialism. The only other film I can think of off the top of my head that did better would be ‘American Psycho’. Thankfully and perhaps gratefully, ‘Chief Zabu’ accomplished this WITHOUT the excessive and unprecedented depictions of violence. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The only way to one-up the movie is if we could take it back in time and give it the ‘MST3K’ treatment.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Max Winslow and the House of Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is a family film, very much in the vein of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Maxine Winslow (Sydne Mikelle), or Max for short, is our Charlie Bucket, coming from a single-parent family and living with a mother who is struggling with debt. Tech-savvy Max is also a skilled hacker, demonstrating this by taking control of her neighbours video doorbell and making it ring so that he comes running outside. Kind of like a modern-day Knock-Down Ginger.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Boys - Season 2 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
As I have already stated in my review of season one of The Boys, it is a show that I have found compelling to watch without actually liking or thinking it is necessarily very good. The premise was intriguing, and threw up some pretty interesting dramatic conflicts in the first season. But it was obvious from very early on that this show wanted to make the most of its 18 certificate and use gore, violence and shock tactics to really make fans of those things gasp.
In season two they have taken that key point of difference and turned the volume up to ten! All I remember from it, some three months now since I finished it, is blood, exploding and crushed heads, severed limbs, gross out deaths and lots more blood. Which, you know, turns some people on, but after the first ten times I got pretty sick of it – almost literally – and was just riding it out to the finish mostly.
Performance wise, there isn’t really a stand out, and the writing doesn’t really offer the opportunity (yet) for true emotional depth. Antony Starr, as the deplorably egotistical maniac “hero” Homelander, is the one you love to hate though! Rarely have I found myself wanting a character to get his dues so much! He is utterly loathsome and repulsive, so much credit for that creation. Depending on where they take things in season 3 and beyond, he could emerge as one of the iconic characters of this era of streaming TV.
In terms of story progression, a decent job has been made by introducing Aya Cash as Stormfront, a depraved love interest for Homelander with a big secret and a great plot device. Most of the events have revolved around her introduction, development, backstory reveal and consequences of that on the show’s main man. Meanwhile the storyline around Karl Urban as Billy Butcher becomes more and more forgettable and sometimes irrelevant.
That is the problem with this show really; it has set itself up as being Superheros that are actually assholes vs renegade anti-heros that want to stop them… but, it knows that as soon as that conflict is resolved and satisfied the show is over. So, they drag the story along with very minimal contact as yet between the two. Plenty of inner turmoil within the two groups, but no action as such against one another.
And that is why the build up to this season’s climax felt mostly anti-climactic. Although it did land a half decent cliff-hanger right at the end. I don’t know… I just feel as if it’s a show to let wash over you without that much value in analysing it. And that wash always makes me feel slightly grubbier than I was before. If redemption, conflict and resolution are on the cards they need to get a dose of it into season three, or I will probably lose interest fast.
Amazon Prime has a lot of shows a lot better than this one, but probably none that appeal as much to boys and men under 30. It has its place on the vast entertainment schedule, but personally I am craving more meaning and less of the puerile dependence on gore. However, if that is what its audience talk about, then its gonna increase not decrease. They have set their own bloody bar now and my fear is this is what the future of the show holds: more and more original ways to gross us out. I’d like to be proved wrong, but I don’t feel in a huge rush about it either way.
In season two they have taken that key point of difference and turned the volume up to ten! All I remember from it, some three months now since I finished it, is blood, exploding and crushed heads, severed limbs, gross out deaths and lots more blood. Which, you know, turns some people on, but after the first ten times I got pretty sick of it – almost literally – and was just riding it out to the finish mostly.
Performance wise, there isn’t really a stand out, and the writing doesn’t really offer the opportunity (yet) for true emotional depth. Antony Starr, as the deplorably egotistical maniac “hero” Homelander, is the one you love to hate though! Rarely have I found myself wanting a character to get his dues so much! He is utterly loathsome and repulsive, so much credit for that creation. Depending on where they take things in season 3 and beyond, he could emerge as one of the iconic characters of this era of streaming TV.
In terms of story progression, a decent job has been made by introducing Aya Cash as Stormfront, a depraved love interest for Homelander with a big secret and a great plot device. Most of the events have revolved around her introduction, development, backstory reveal and consequences of that on the show’s main man. Meanwhile the storyline around Karl Urban as Billy Butcher becomes more and more forgettable and sometimes irrelevant.
That is the problem with this show really; it has set itself up as being Superheros that are actually assholes vs renegade anti-heros that want to stop them… but, it knows that as soon as that conflict is resolved and satisfied the show is over. So, they drag the story along with very minimal contact as yet between the two. Plenty of inner turmoil within the two groups, but no action as such against one another.
And that is why the build up to this season’s climax felt mostly anti-climactic. Although it did land a half decent cliff-hanger right at the end. I don’t know… I just feel as if it’s a show to let wash over you without that much value in analysing it. And that wash always makes me feel slightly grubbier than I was before. If redemption, conflict and resolution are on the cards they need to get a dose of it into season three, or I will probably lose interest fast.
Amazon Prime has a lot of shows a lot better than this one, but probably none that appeal as much to boys and men under 30. It has its place on the vast entertainment schedule, but personally I am craving more meaning and less of the puerile dependence on gore. However, if that is what its audience talk about, then its gonna increase not decrease. They have set their own bloody bar now and my fear is this is what the future of the show holds: more and more original ways to gross us out. I’d like to be proved wrong, but I don’t feel in a huge rush about it either way.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Virtual game nights over Zoom have been a big part of many lockdown experiences, so, if you haven’t already, check out this fun, disposable comedy starring Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams. The two ever reliable leads make this 100 minute romp something worth doing, pitched as it is to tickle you on a superficial level and then leave you alone. Not one minute of meaningful plot or artistic message exists here; this is frat house tomfoolery for the now middle aged mainstream and then a bow to the crowd.
Anyone who has hosted, or been a guest at a dedicated game night will instantly relate to recognisable moments of cringe, such as the person who takes it all far too seriously and must win at all costs; the one who is far too dim to be true, and neither understands the rules nor knows the answers; the couple whose relationship is about to be ruined by how much they disagree; the guys who care much more about the booze, chat and music to care about the game; and the psycho that you didn’t really want to invite but is there in the mix anyway, giving the weirdest answers of all time and bringing down the mood. It’s all there!
When events take a canny twist and a planned fake murder mystery turns into a very real one, there is tons of fun to be had watching the main pair misjudge the amount of danger they are in, believing it all to still be a game. Bateman phones in his usual laconic likeable deadpan schtick, hard to differentiate from his role in half a dozen other films where he plays the likeable everyman, but is never less than watchable – because that’s what he does. McAdams also delivers her ace card, with a guileless charm and sweetness that makes her permanently lovable. She also wins by a point or two on the best lines and laugh out loud moments. If I was keeping score, I’d say she wins this one.
As a couple, their chemistry works a treat and sustains the conceit well for most of the running time. It can feel at times like a bit of a one trick pony, however, and also pushes the boundaries of likability by having quite a mean heart in places, leaning on crass, puerile or macho humour when not entirely necessary – but I guess it knows its target audience and just goes full tilt at that goal.
For that reason, it wouldn’t be something I’d be showing the kids. This is adult humour, for adults – a concept that always makes me slightly uncomfortable, as it will inevitably involve gratuitous violence, nasty misogyny and token gross-outs: the mainstay of comedy films without actual jokes. Game Night just about gets away with it, however, by being smart enough and self-aware enough to know exactly where it sits, shrugging its shoulders and saying “this is what this is” take it or leave it. And I guess there will be as many people who don’t enjoy it as those who do.
Personally, I enjoy what Bateman and McAdams do best enough to play along and enjoy the ride. There is also a terrifically creepy, but note perfect turn from the increasingly reliable Jesse Plemmons, as the lonely neighbour, who steals all the funniest moments the film has to offer. See it for his performance and comic timing if for nothing else. It’s also nice to see Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame turn up for two minutes of mayhem – I don’t see enough of him these days.
In conclusion, neither a winner or a loser. Let’s call it a draw and reset the pieces.
Anyone who has hosted, or been a guest at a dedicated game night will instantly relate to recognisable moments of cringe, such as the person who takes it all far too seriously and must win at all costs; the one who is far too dim to be true, and neither understands the rules nor knows the answers; the couple whose relationship is about to be ruined by how much they disagree; the guys who care much more about the booze, chat and music to care about the game; and the psycho that you didn’t really want to invite but is there in the mix anyway, giving the weirdest answers of all time and bringing down the mood. It’s all there!
When events take a canny twist and a planned fake murder mystery turns into a very real one, there is tons of fun to be had watching the main pair misjudge the amount of danger they are in, believing it all to still be a game. Bateman phones in his usual laconic likeable deadpan schtick, hard to differentiate from his role in half a dozen other films where he plays the likeable everyman, but is never less than watchable – because that’s what he does. McAdams also delivers her ace card, with a guileless charm and sweetness that makes her permanently lovable. She also wins by a point or two on the best lines and laugh out loud moments. If I was keeping score, I’d say she wins this one.
As a couple, their chemistry works a treat and sustains the conceit well for most of the running time. It can feel at times like a bit of a one trick pony, however, and also pushes the boundaries of likability by having quite a mean heart in places, leaning on crass, puerile or macho humour when not entirely necessary – but I guess it knows its target audience and just goes full tilt at that goal.
For that reason, it wouldn’t be something I’d be showing the kids. This is adult humour, for adults – a concept that always makes me slightly uncomfortable, as it will inevitably involve gratuitous violence, nasty misogyny and token gross-outs: the mainstay of comedy films without actual jokes. Game Night just about gets away with it, however, by being smart enough and self-aware enough to know exactly where it sits, shrugging its shoulders and saying “this is what this is” take it or leave it. And I guess there will be as many people who don’t enjoy it as those who do.
Personally, I enjoy what Bateman and McAdams do best enough to play along and enjoy the ride. There is also a terrifically creepy, but note perfect turn from the increasingly reliable Jesse Plemmons, as the lonely neighbour, who steals all the funniest moments the film has to offer. See it for his performance and comic timing if for nothing else. It’s also nice to see Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame turn up for two minutes of mayhem – I don’t see enough of him these days.
In conclusion, neither a winner or a loser. Let’s call it a draw and reset the pieces.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Dec 26, 2020
Moody and Atmospheric
Ever since his stint on ER, I have been a fan of George Clooney’s - and not just because he is charming and charismatic on film - but because I find that he brings an interesting facet to whatever character he inhabits
.
And with his latest effort THE MIDNIGHT SKY (Directed by Mr. Clooney, as well) he does not disappoint as his performance - and his Direction - are fascinating to watch.
Based upon the novel by Lily Brooks-Dalton, THE MIDNIGHT SKY tells the tale of a lone scientist (Clooney) in a remote, arctic research station, who is one of the few remaining people on an Earth that has become uninhabitable. He rushes to warn some returning astronauts to avoid their home planet.
A thoughtful, moody film. THE MIDNIGHT SKY will not be everyone’s cup of tea - and you have to be in the mood for something somewhat slow and contemplative - but if you are, you will be rewarded with a rich tapestry of visuals and performances that will be, ultimately, fulfilling.
Let’s start with what works - George Clooney. His direction and his performance as Augustine, the scientist, are both sparse and compact. Neither of these facets have an extraneous movement or tone and they work hand-in-hand to deliver the film that Clooney, obviously intends to give us.
Visually, this film is beautiful to look at - inter cutting the vast emptiness of space to the vast, snowy emptiness of the Arctic. The images that Clooney was able to create was well worth watching this film for.
Clooney was also fortunate enough to cast a variety of stellar performers in a film that has very few roles, so the ones that are there better deliver the goods - and they do. From Ethan Peck (Spock in Star Trek:Discovery) who plays the young Clooney in a flashback (I am very glad they chose to do this as opposed to “de-aging” Clooney) to the Astronauts: Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo (who I continue to like more and more every time I see him), Kyle Chandler and Tiffany Boone. All strike the right tone for the moodiness of this film.
Special notice should be made for Damien Bechir’s astronaut, Sanchez. He was terrific in the limited screen time he had and elevated every scene he was in. Bechir has become one of those performers who I get excited about when I see that he is going to be involved in a screen project.
What doesn’t work? Well…as I stated before…the pacing. It is slow (almost coming to a stop) at times. Since this is a film that will be streamed via Netflix, I can see many, many folks grabbing their phones at times, which is too bad, for the moodiness - and pace - worked for me (or at least the for the mood I was in while watching this).
My other issue with this film is the contrived circumstances that both Clooney and the Astronauts find themselves in. It isn’t enough that Clooney has to journey across rugged Arctic terrain to find a more powerful antennae to communicate with the Astronauts, we have to throw in cracking and melting ice to it. And, of course, just as the Astronauts connect with Clooney, a surprise meteor shower damages the communication array. These contrivances just wasn’t need for the type of movie this film was trying to be. It’s almost as if the Studio Heads said “it’s too slow and talky - put some action in this thing”.
But, if you are able to stay with this film, the ending pays off very well, indeed. I found that it earned it’s ending and I walked away moved and satisfied.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
.
And with his latest effort THE MIDNIGHT SKY (Directed by Mr. Clooney, as well) he does not disappoint as his performance - and his Direction - are fascinating to watch.
Based upon the novel by Lily Brooks-Dalton, THE MIDNIGHT SKY tells the tale of a lone scientist (Clooney) in a remote, arctic research station, who is one of the few remaining people on an Earth that has become uninhabitable. He rushes to warn some returning astronauts to avoid their home planet.
A thoughtful, moody film. THE MIDNIGHT SKY will not be everyone’s cup of tea - and you have to be in the mood for something somewhat slow and contemplative - but if you are, you will be rewarded with a rich tapestry of visuals and performances that will be, ultimately, fulfilling.
Let’s start with what works - George Clooney. His direction and his performance as Augustine, the scientist, are both sparse and compact. Neither of these facets have an extraneous movement or tone and they work hand-in-hand to deliver the film that Clooney, obviously intends to give us.
Visually, this film is beautiful to look at - inter cutting the vast emptiness of space to the vast, snowy emptiness of the Arctic. The images that Clooney was able to create was well worth watching this film for.
Clooney was also fortunate enough to cast a variety of stellar performers in a film that has very few roles, so the ones that are there better deliver the goods - and they do. From Ethan Peck (Spock in Star Trek:Discovery) who plays the young Clooney in a flashback (I am very glad they chose to do this as opposed to “de-aging” Clooney) to the Astronauts: Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo (who I continue to like more and more every time I see him), Kyle Chandler and Tiffany Boone. All strike the right tone for the moodiness of this film.
Special notice should be made for Damien Bechir’s astronaut, Sanchez. He was terrific in the limited screen time he had and elevated every scene he was in. Bechir has become one of those performers who I get excited about when I see that he is going to be involved in a screen project.
What doesn’t work? Well…as I stated before…the pacing. It is slow (almost coming to a stop) at times. Since this is a film that will be streamed via Netflix, I can see many, many folks grabbing their phones at times, which is too bad, for the moodiness - and pace - worked for me (or at least the for the mood I was in while watching this).
My other issue with this film is the contrived circumstances that both Clooney and the Astronauts find themselves in. It isn’t enough that Clooney has to journey across rugged Arctic terrain to find a more powerful antennae to communicate with the Astronauts, we have to throw in cracking and melting ice to it. And, of course, just as the Astronauts connect with Clooney, a surprise meteor shower damages the communication array. These contrivances just wasn’t need for the type of movie this film was trying to be. It’s almost as if the Studio Heads said “it’s too slow and talky - put some action in this thing”.
But, if you are able to stay with this film, the ending pays off very well, indeed. I found that it earned it’s ending and I walked away moved and satisfied.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)