Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tom and Jerry (2021) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
The animation looks nice (2 more)
Decent laughs
Gets the Tom and Jerry part of the movie right
Too predictable (2 more)
Bad plot
Barely above average movie overall
Visually Pleasing With Decent Laughs Sprinkled Throughout
Tom and Jerry is a 2021 live-action/CGI animated comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kevin Costello. The film was produced by Chris DeFaria and Warner Animation Group, The Story Company, and Turner Entertainment Co. and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The movie stars Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael Pena, Colin Jost, Robe Delaney and Ken Jeong.
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Devil's Workshop in Books
Jan 10, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
The Devil’s Workshop by Donnally Miller is one of the few books that I felt like I had to read twice, and did. Even after that I still feel like I am missing quite a bit of what this book has to offer. If there were ever a book that deserves to be torn apart (and I mean that in the best possible sense) and be studied in depth to have all the hidden meanings exposed this is it. However, I am not the one to do it.
Tom and Katie love each other to the point that when Tom leaves to work on a ship for a while, Katie gives him an extremely special engraved pocket watch to take with him. Little does Tom know, he helped bury the Son of Light shortly before leaving and this has thrown the world into chaos. Katie loses her job at the mansion where she lives and finds herself traveling with a dog and a lovesick man whom she has no affection for on a journey to find Tom. Meanwhile, Tom has lost Katie’s pocket watch, was thrown overboard, and is trying to make his way back to her. Thanks to Deirdre, The Queen of the Witches, the journey these two lovers are on is excruciatingly long and dangerous.
The Indians who live peacefully in the Forest have started to band together in preparation for driving “the white man” back into the sea where they came from. Slaves have also started rebelling all along the Coast and are being hunted by a military who wants them destroyed. Making things even worse Pirates are causing the roads to be unsafe for travelers and Tom finds himself mixed up with them. All the while Deirdre is playing her games with each of the separate groups. The only way to set everything right once more is to create a new Child of Light.
I enjoyed how all the characters seem to cross paths at one point or another in ways that are more natural than forced by the author. All the trials that Tom and Katie are willing to endure in an attempt to see each other again restore a person’s faith in humanity and love. At the same time, the book forces the reader to question just what is love and why will we go to the ends of the Earth for it. What I did not like was that there were a few different times where I would lose track of who was talking or what was going on. I am not sure if this was in any way due to how the book was written or because I was not devoting the amount of attention to the book as it deserves. Even so philosophical books are expected to confuse readers at times and force them to re-evaluate passages, so it in no way changes my opinion of this book.
I would only recommend this book to adult readers. While there is nothing inappropriate for readers in high school, the philosophy would probably be a bit much for them. The casual reader should also be prepared for a long and at times difficult read. Nonetheless, I rate this book to be a perfect 4 out of 4. People who do not realize what kind of book this is would probably put it down during the first few chapters and give it a low rating for being hard to read. Those that realize what they are reading will find that the seemingly random ramblings do make sense if you slow down. There is a wonderful plotline and a beautiful love story (thankfully not a mushy one) that takes place throughout the book if readers are willing to take their time and look.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Tom and Katie love each other to the point that when Tom leaves to work on a ship for a while, Katie gives him an extremely special engraved pocket watch to take with him. Little does Tom know, he helped bury the Son of Light shortly before leaving and this has thrown the world into chaos. Katie loses her job at the mansion where she lives and finds herself traveling with a dog and a lovesick man whom she has no affection for on a journey to find Tom. Meanwhile, Tom has lost Katie’s pocket watch, was thrown overboard, and is trying to make his way back to her. Thanks to Deirdre, The Queen of the Witches, the journey these two lovers are on is excruciatingly long and dangerous.
The Indians who live peacefully in the Forest have started to band together in preparation for driving “the white man” back into the sea where they came from. Slaves have also started rebelling all along the Coast and are being hunted by a military who wants them destroyed. Making things even worse Pirates are causing the roads to be unsafe for travelers and Tom finds himself mixed up with them. All the while Deirdre is playing her games with each of the separate groups. The only way to set everything right once more is to create a new Child of Light.
I enjoyed how all the characters seem to cross paths at one point or another in ways that are more natural than forced by the author. All the trials that Tom and Katie are willing to endure in an attempt to see each other again restore a person’s faith in humanity and love. At the same time, the book forces the reader to question just what is love and why will we go to the ends of the Earth for it. What I did not like was that there were a few different times where I would lose track of who was talking or what was going on. I am not sure if this was in any way due to how the book was written or because I was not devoting the amount of attention to the book as it deserves. Even so philosophical books are expected to confuse readers at times and force them to re-evaluate passages, so it in no way changes my opinion of this book.
I would only recommend this book to adult readers. While there is nothing inappropriate for readers in high school, the philosophy would probably be a bit much for them. The casual reader should also be prepared for a long and at times difficult read. Nonetheless, I rate this book to be a perfect 4 out of 4. People who do not realize what kind of book this is would probably put it down during the first few chapters and give it a low rating for being hard to read. Those that realize what they are reading will find that the seemingly random ramblings do make sense if you slow down. There is a wonderful plotline and a beautiful love story (thankfully not a mushy one) that takes place throughout the book if readers are willing to take their time and look.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
JT (287 KP) rated Risky Business (1983) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
That shot of Tom Cruise sliding across the hall in his trademark shades, pink shirt and the tightest pair of white briefs is synonymous with the spring board that launched his career.
A film that may have proved the inspiration for Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is one of Cruise’s most famous roles, and it has all the hall marks of a classic 80s comedy with an influx of drama that proved the catalyst for a great film.
Joel Goodsen (Cruise) is just your average American teen, when his parents go out of town for a few days he and fellow buddies look to have a little fun, in part by turning the homestead into a working brothel.
Of course there is a method behind the madness with Cruise hooking up with call girl Lana (De Mornay), they both have their problems and agree on a mutual business deal which also involves engaging in sex every now and again.
If you ever wonder what to do on the subway one night Cruise and De Mornay lead the lesson. That scene in itself is draped in 80s clichés, soft rock music and a strobe lighting effect from the train, it delivers on the steam factor.
The subject matter throughout is strong and covered across all angles. A highly sexed teenage boy, drug use, what not to do to your father’s Porche and being hunted down by a killer pimp, its all in there.
Cruise’s acting display is not the best, but he has the early raw talent to get him through, and of course as we know, the rest is history. What is always similar about teenage kids of this era getting into trouble is that they always seem to get away with it in the end, Ferris Bueller a prime example.
To think that anyone in this day and age would be as lucky is highly unlikely, and that goes for sliding around in tight white under garments.
A film that may have proved the inspiration for Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is one of Cruise’s most famous roles, and it has all the hall marks of a classic 80s comedy with an influx of drama that proved the catalyst for a great film.
Joel Goodsen (Cruise) is just your average American teen, when his parents go out of town for a few days he and fellow buddies look to have a little fun, in part by turning the homestead into a working brothel.
Of course there is a method behind the madness with Cruise hooking up with call girl Lana (De Mornay), they both have their problems and agree on a mutual business deal which also involves engaging in sex every now and again.
If you ever wonder what to do on the subway one night Cruise and De Mornay lead the lesson. That scene in itself is draped in 80s clichés, soft rock music and a strobe lighting effect from the train, it delivers on the steam factor.
The subject matter throughout is strong and covered across all angles. A highly sexed teenage boy, drug use, what not to do to your father’s Porche and being hunted down by a killer pimp, its all in there.
Cruise’s acting display is not the best, but he has the early raw talent to get him through, and of course as we know, the rest is history. What is always similar about teenage kids of this era getting into trouble is that they always seem to get away with it in the end, Ferris Bueller a prime example.
To think that anyone in this day and age would be as lucky is highly unlikely, and that goes for sliding around in tight white under garments.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murder and the Birth of the FBI in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<I>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</I>
It is well known that throughout history, facts have been omitted from history books. Written accounts of events ostensibly make important figures and countries appear to be in the right, whereas reality reveals otherwise. One such exclusion is the fate of the Native Americans inhabiting the southern states at the beginning of the 1900s. Children are brought up to believe the stories that “Red Indians” are bad and the cowboys are good, but this was unlikely the case. David Grann has researched into a particular period of Native American history that most people may never have heard of.<I> Killers of the Flower Moon</I> reveals the horrors innocent people faced at the hands of perfidious criminals.
The majority of the book is written as a third person narrative, recounting the lives of some of the members of the Osage Indian Nation in Oklahoma. White people, believing themselves to be superior, had forced the natives off their homelands and onto rocky, unwanted ground. What they did not anticipate, however, was the abundance of oil residing beneath the surface. The Osage went from being oppressed to being the wealthiest people in the state. Full of avarice, the whites were not going to let them get away with this fortune for long.
David Grann takes a particular interest in Mollie Burkhart, an Osage member with a white husband. Mollie had three sisters, but within a few short years they were all dead, and so was her mother. Believing they had been murdered, Mollie fears for her life. Other Osage members were also being killed, as well as those who tried to investigate the spreading slaughter. However, the case remained stubbornly unsolved.
Nevertheless, there was still hope for Mollie after the arrival of Tom White, an agent of the soon to be known as Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Determined to get to the bottom of the so-called Reign of Terror, Tom and his team carefully analyse the behaviours and motives of the disingenuous citizens, narrowing down the suspects until eventually finding their duplicitous killer.
Learning about this unknown period of history is eye opening and offers a completely new view on the relations between whites and Native Americans. It was a time of prejudice and racism, not unlike the attitude towards black people emphasised with the civil rights movement in the mid-1900s. Greed was a significant motivator, particularly where making money was involved. But, David Grann does not stop here.
The final section of <i>Killers of the Flower Moon</i> is written from the author’s perspective. As a staff writer at <i>The New Yorker</i>, the evidence of the Osage murders case intrigued David Grann, but he was concerned about some unresolved holes in the story. Determined to uncover the truth, Grann conducted his own research to discover the culprits behind the undocumented murders unrelated to Mollie Burkhart’s family. What he stumbles on highlights the severity of the dark fate the Osage Indians were threatened with.
Despite being written as a narrative, it is obvious that <i>Killers of the Flower Moon</i> is a work of non-fiction. It lacks emotion and character insight, however, since it is not meant to be a fabricated story, these elements are not required. Instead, it shocks and disturbs the reader with its unbelievable truths.
An extensive biography proves the authenticity of David Grann’s revelation. With the reinforcement of FBI files, jury testimonials, statements, court transcripts, letters, telegrams, diaries and confessions, Grann produces a strong historical record of events that should not be glossed over. Without authors and books such as <i>Killers of the Flower Moon</i>, people will blindly go around believing falsehoods. The truth needs to be discovered, and readers can start by reading this book.
It is well known that throughout history, facts have been omitted from history books. Written accounts of events ostensibly make important figures and countries appear to be in the right, whereas reality reveals otherwise. One such exclusion is the fate of the Native Americans inhabiting the southern states at the beginning of the 1900s. Children are brought up to believe the stories that “Red Indians” are bad and the cowboys are good, but this was unlikely the case. David Grann has researched into a particular period of Native American history that most people may never have heard of.<I> Killers of the Flower Moon</I> reveals the horrors innocent people faced at the hands of perfidious criminals.
The majority of the book is written as a third person narrative, recounting the lives of some of the members of the Osage Indian Nation in Oklahoma. White people, believing themselves to be superior, had forced the natives off their homelands and onto rocky, unwanted ground. What they did not anticipate, however, was the abundance of oil residing beneath the surface. The Osage went from being oppressed to being the wealthiest people in the state. Full of avarice, the whites were not going to let them get away with this fortune for long.
David Grann takes a particular interest in Mollie Burkhart, an Osage member with a white husband. Mollie had three sisters, but within a few short years they were all dead, and so was her mother. Believing they had been murdered, Mollie fears for her life. Other Osage members were also being killed, as well as those who tried to investigate the spreading slaughter. However, the case remained stubbornly unsolved.
Nevertheless, there was still hope for Mollie after the arrival of Tom White, an agent of the soon to be known as Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Determined to get to the bottom of the so-called Reign of Terror, Tom and his team carefully analyse the behaviours and motives of the disingenuous citizens, narrowing down the suspects until eventually finding their duplicitous killer.
Learning about this unknown period of history is eye opening and offers a completely new view on the relations between whites and Native Americans. It was a time of prejudice and racism, not unlike the attitude towards black people emphasised with the civil rights movement in the mid-1900s. Greed was a significant motivator, particularly where making money was involved. But, David Grann does not stop here.
The final section of <i>Killers of the Flower Moon</i> is written from the author’s perspective. As a staff writer at <i>The New Yorker</i>, the evidence of the Osage murders case intrigued David Grann, but he was concerned about some unresolved holes in the story. Determined to uncover the truth, Grann conducted his own research to discover the culprits behind the undocumented murders unrelated to Mollie Burkhart’s family. What he stumbles on highlights the severity of the dark fate the Osage Indians were threatened with.
Despite being written as a narrative, it is obvious that <i>Killers of the Flower Moon</i> is a work of non-fiction. It lacks emotion and character insight, however, since it is not meant to be a fabricated story, these elements are not required. Instead, it shocks and disturbs the reader with its unbelievable truths.
An extensive biography proves the authenticity of David Grann’s revelation. With the reinforcement of FBI files, jury testimonials, statements, court transcripts, letters, telegrams, diaries and confessions, Grann produces a strong historical record of events that should not be glossed over. Without authors and books such as <i>Killers of the Flower Moon</i>, people will blindly go around believing falsehoods. The truth needs to be discovered, and readers can start by reading this book.
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murder and the Birth of the FBI in Books
Nov 24, 2017 (Updated Nov 24, 2017)
Mind-blowing and a disconcerting read
I can say without a doubt, this is one of the best novels I've read this year. It is a disturbing and excellent real-life account of the plight of Native Americans who found themselves the unwitting beneficiaries of a financial boom in the 1920's after oil was discovered under the previously barren and worthless reservation they were moved to.
This fantastic book relates to a story covered in blood, racism and greed. Oil, black gold, made the Plains Osage tribe incredibly wealthy. By the 1890's, the remnants of this great people were in the scrub lands of Northern Oklahoma.
Their life was continually harsh, the soil poor. In the late 1890's, by chance, oil was struck in Osage County, flowing in abundance and in great demand. From 1918 to 1928, $202 million was paid to the tribe which by then numbered around 3000, transforming their lives. 680 barrels were obtained in a day in 1920 from a strike at Burbank, angering the whites and thus began the "Reign of Terror" in which hundreds of the Osage tribe members were subsequently killed in the most horrendous display of corruption.
The book itself begins in 1921 with an Osage woman who had a share of the mineral riches to be found under the Osage land. Mollie like others was subject to a law that treated her tribe as juveniles whose estates had to be administered by white guardians, that is local lawyers and businessmen, appointed by local courts.
Guardianship was unpoliced and few records were kept. Fraud was therefore prevalent and many of the local white community participated in corruption - murder was widespread as a result. Mollie's sister, Anna, was the first noticeable murder in which she was shot and killed, launching a major probe into similar killings in the area. Many other murders were committed over the following years, with poisoning as the most common method of killing. Essentially it was a covert form of genocide.
The locals refused to act, partly due to fear or involvement in this heinous plot, so J. Edgar Hoover, who was the first president of the FBI, became involved in the investigation. He sent a tall Texas Ranger called Tom White to scrutinise an epic series of murders in which even investigators were targets.
What follows is not only history but a riveting detective story and the book demonstrates yet again the enormous cost of American nationhood. It provides some fascinating insight into the early workings of the FBI (not least Hoover's nascent megalomania) for whom this was a celebrated case and a valuable reminder for folk who thought the persecution of American Indians ended in the late 19th century. Author and journalist David Grann does a superb job in collating all of the information with dozens of pages solely highlighting attributions and references - it is thorough and well-researched. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Hollywood has snapped up this book to turn it into a major motion picture - let's hope they don't whitewash history once again.
This fantastic book relates to a story covered in blood, racism and greed. Oil, black gold, made the Plains Osage tribe incredibly wealthy. By the 1890's, the remnants of this great people were in the scrub lands of Northern Oklahoma.
Their life was continually harsh, the soil poor. In the late 1890's, by chance, oil was struck in Osage County, flowing in abundance and in great demand. From 1918 to 1928, $202 million was paid to the tribe which by then numbered around 3000, transforming their lives. 680 barrels were obtained in a day in 1920 from a strike at Burbank, angering the whites and thus began the "Reign of Terror" in which hundreds of the Osage tribe members were subsequently killed in the most horrendous display of corruption.
The book itself begins in 1921 with an Osage woman who had a share of the mineral riches to be found under the Osage land. Mollie like others was subject to a law that treated her tribe as juveniles whose estates had to be administered by white guardians, that is local lawyers and businessmen, appointed by local courts.
Guardianship was unpoliced and few records were kept. Fraud was therefore prevalent and many of the local white community participated in corruption - murder was widespread as a result. Mollie's sister, Anna, was the first noticeable murder in which she was shot and killed, launching a major probe into similar killings in the area. Many other murders were committed over the following years, with poisoning as the most common method of killing. Essentially it was a covert form of genocide.
The locals refused to act, partly due to fear or involvement in this heinous plot, so J. Edgar Hoover, who was the first president of the FBI, became involved in the investigation. He sent a tall Texas Ranger called Tom White to scrutinise an epic series of murders in which even investigators were targets.
What follows is not only history but a riveting detective story and the book demonstrates yet again the enormous cost of American nationhood. It provides some fascinating insight into the early workings of the FBI (not least Hoover's nascent megalomania) for whom this was a celebrated case and a valuable reminder for folk who thought the persecution of American Indians ended in the late 19th century. Author and journalist David Grann does a superb job in collating all of the information with dozens of pages solely highlighting attributions and references - it is thorough and well-researched. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Hollywood has snapped up this book to turn it into a major motion picture - let's hope they don't whitewash history once again.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Aug 1, 2018
Quite possibly, the best action film ever made
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT just might be the best action movie I have ever seen.
Yes...it is that good.
The 6th entry in the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE franchise, this film stars, as usual, Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, part of the IMF, a secret government entity that takes on the impossible missions that the CIA (and other agencies) won't touch. He is joined, yet again, in this installment of the franchise by his "usual" team, Simon Pegg (Benji), Ving Rhames (Luther), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilse) and Alec Baldwin (IMF Director Hunley). It was fun to have "the band" back together again. They looked like they had a good time filming this and I had a good time watching it.
Jumping right in on the fun is Angela Bassett (BLACK PANTHER) as the head of the CIA, but doing more than just being a thorn in the side of Alec Baldwin. As well as Vanessa Kirby (THE CROWN) as the mysterious "White Widow" and, especially, Henry Cavill, who shows that he can do more than be DC's Superman.
And, finally, the franchise wisely brings back Sean Harris as "big bad" Solomon Lane (think Bond's arch-nemesis Blofeld). He proves to be, yet again, an able adversary for the IMF team.
The plot, of course, is somewhat convoluted, with twists, turns and double-crosses (by both the good and bad guys) throughout this film. If I have a quibble for this film, it is that they got a little "cute" with the plot twists - there was (perhaps) one or two too many "gotchas" - but that is just a quibble, for the plot gets us from point "A" to point "B" nicely.
And when I say "Point A" and "Point B", I mean action set piece "A" to action set piece "B" (and "C" and "D" and "E" and "F"...) - and boy are these action set pieces EXTRAORDINARY!
Director Christopher McQuarrie (he also Directed the previous film in this franchise, ROUGE NATION) is the first person to helm two of these films - and I think it is a smart choice for he established in Rogue Nation an ability to create smart, tense action, chase and fight sequences that are easy to follow and fun to watch.
Credit for most of this fun has to go to 55 year old (at the time of filming) Tom Cruise - looking every bit as fit and capable as a 35 year old Tom Cruise. He dives into the action sequences (literally) with gusto and proves more than capable of delivering the goods. Once again, he does a death-defying stunt that left me amazed.
But, what I really left the theater with was an appreciation for McQuarrie, Cruise and company for delivering an end sequence that earned the build up it was given. EVERY member of the company had something to do and the action in this endpiece was a step up of anything that had come before it - either in the Mission Impossible series, or in any other action flick.
If you are a fan of good, solid action films, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT is one to not miss.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes...it is that good.
The 6th entry in the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE franchise, this film stars, as usual, Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, part of the IMF, a secret government entity that takes on the impossible missions that the CIA (and other agencies) won't touch. He is joined, yet again, in this installment of the franchise by his "usual" team, Simon Pegg (Benji), Ving Rhames (Luther), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilse) and Alec Baldwin (IMF Director Hunley). It was fun to have "the band" back together again. They looked like they had a good time filming this and I had a good time watching it.
Jumping right in on the fun is Angela Bassett (BLACK PANTHER) as the head of the CIA, but doing more than just being a thorn in the side of Alec Baldwin. As well as Vanessa Kirby (THE CROWN) as the mysterious "White Widow" and, especially, Henry Cavill, who shows that he can do more than be DC's Superman.
And, finally, the franchise wisely brings back Sean Harris as "big bad" Solomon Lane (think Bond's arch-nemesis Blofeld). He proves to be, yet again, an able adversary for the IMF team.
The plot, of course, is somewhat convoluted, with twists, turns and double-crosses (by both the good and bad guys) throughout this film. If I have a quibble for this film, it is that they got a little "cute" with the plot twists - there was (perhaps) one or two too many "gotchas" - but that is just a quibble, for the plot gets us from point "A" to point "B" nicely.
And when I say "Point A" and "Point B", I mean action set piece "A" to action set piece "B" (and "C" and "D" and "E" and "F"...) - and boy are these action set pieces EXTRAORDINARY!
Director Christopher McQuarrie (he also Directed the previous film in this franchise, ROUGE NATION) is the first person to helm two of these films - and I think it is a smart choice for he established in Rogue Nation an ability to create smart, tense action, chase and fight sequences that are easy to follow and fun to watch.
Credit for most of this fun has to go to 55 year old (at the time of filming) Tom Cruise - looking every bit as fit and capable as a 35 year old Tom Cruise. He dives into the action sequences (literally) with gusto and proves more than capable of delivering the goods. Once again, he does a death-defying stunt that left me amazed.
But, what I really left the theater with was an appreciation for McQuarrie, Cruise and company for delivering an end sequence that earned the build up it was given. EVERY member of the company had something to do and the action in this endpiece was a step up of anything that had come before it - either in the Mission Impossible series, or in any other action flick.
If you are a fan of good, solid action films, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT is one to not miss.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated The Sleeper in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Interesting elements for a kids book
The Sleeper is a 96-page science fiction mystery early chapter book. It comes with a few accompanying discussion questions at the back, as well as with some writing prompts and a basic glossary. These writing prompts encourage the reader to continue to interact with the story on their own terms. It plunges the reader right into a world that is theoretically just a few days away from getting destroyed by aliens. But the viewpoint the story is being told from is different than you might expect.
The illustrations in The Sleeper are black and white and surprisingly creepy. The illustrator, Tom Percival, does a solid job doing things like showing how even a smile can be rather disturbing. Nothing is graphic or outright scary at all, and yet readers can definitely experience an unease just looking at the pictures.
The Sleeper introduces the concept of a sleeper agent to young readers. I thought this was interesting and wasn't expecting it even though the title should have been a dead giveaway. In my defense, the cover for The Sleeper and the two line synopsis don't exactly tell you what to expect other than aliens!
While there are several good points to The Sleeper, I can't say I particularly liked it. It felt too brief and even though the discussion questions invite the reader to continue the story, it ends on a massive cliffhanger regarding one of the kids' fate. This may be deliberate, and for younger readers, it may actually work out well. It enables the child to feel a sense of accomplishment that they finished a book, and yet provides the impetus for them to pick up the next one. (Still made me twitch as it reeks too much of the chop-job that some authors like to do to a plot to sell more books.)
Overall, The Sleeper was an okay read. If it gets even a handful of kids interested enough to pick up another book, then it is has done its job. And, as always, it's nice to see a beginning chapter book that focuses on science fiction!
The illustrations in The Sleeper are black and white and surprisingly creepy. The illustrator, Tom Percival, does a solid job doing things like showing how even a smile can be rather disturbing. Nothing is graphic or outright scary at all, and yet readers can definitely experience an unease just looking at the pictures.
The Sleeper introduces the concept of a sleeper agent to young readers. I thought this was interesting and wasn't expecting it even though the title should have been a dead giveaway. In my defense, the cover for The Sleeper and the two line synopsis don't exactly tell you what to expect other than aliens!
While there are several good points to The Sleeper, I can't say I particularly liked it. It felt too brief and even though the discussion questions invite the reader to continue the story, it ends on a massive cliffhanger regarding one of the kids' fate. This may be deliberate, and for younger readers, it may actually work out well. It enables the child to feel a sense of accomplishment that they finished a book, and yet provides the impetus for them to pick up the next one. (Still made me twitch as it reeks too much of the chop-job that some authors like to do to a plot to sell more books.)
Overall, The Sleeper was an okay read. If it gets even a handful of kids interested enough to pick up another book, then it is has done its job. And, as always, it's nice to see a beginning chapter book that focuses on science fiction!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mission impossible dead reckoning part one (2023) in Movies
Jul 14, 2023
What A Summer Blockbuster Movie Should Be
Boy, that Tom Cruise sure knows how to make a crowd-pleasing, summer blockbuster movie.
Fresh off his cinema-saving success with TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Cruise (and Director Christopher McQuarrie) comes back with another giant summer tentpole film - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE - and they hit it out of the park again.
The 7th film in the Mission Impossible franchise (which debuted, incredibly, 27 years ago), DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE reunites Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) with his band of hero/outlaws to stop yet another world-wide crisis. It’s familiar ground but it is the journey not the destination that makes these types of films work and the journey (which, to be honest, is just an excuse to jump from action set piece to action set piece) is a fun one filled with comfortable characters/actors both old and new.
Besides Cruise (who’s got the Ethan Hunt character down), DR1 is filled with Hunt’s “regular” crew, Luther (Vingh Rhames - the only other actor besides Cruise to be in every MI film), Benji (SImon Pegg - around since MI 3) and Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson - on board since film 5). These are all familiar, comfortable characters and when the band gets back together about 1/2 way through the film, it felt liking sinking into your couch after a long, hard (but good) day of work to watch your favorite comfort show.
McQuarrie, wisely, populates the rest of the film with new, but comfortably familiar, faces such as Haley Atwell (Agent Carter in the MCU), Shea Wigham (ironically, he played Atwell’s boss in the Agent Carter TV Series), Pom Klementieff as Paris (the name of the character Leonard Nimoy played in the TV Series). Klementieff is also a veteran of the MCU having played Mantis in the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Esai Morales (one of the bosses in NYPD BLUE) and Cary Elwes (the Princess Bride). All bring their “A” game to the adventure and all of them acquit themselves just fine.
Oh…and Henry Czerny reprises his role as Kittridge from the first Mission Impossible film - and it was good to see him, too as was Vanessa Kirby’s re-appearance as Hunt’s “frenemie”, The White Widow (in a role that is a bit more expanded).
But, of course, all of these actors/performances takes a back seat to the action sequences and McQuarrie and Cruise are at the top of their game here. The big action set pieces are a marvel to watch - very enjoyable, exciting, nerve-wracking and easy to follow with some sense of humor rolled in. Unlike another big action flick (that leaned more towards the over-the-top comic-book type action), this Mission Impossible film relies on tension to make these action scenes pop off the screen - and McQuarrie succeeds.
Since this film is labeled as “Part One” you would expect to this film to end on a cliff-hanger and McQuarrie/Cruise were smart about that, too. It is more of “the mission isn’t finished” than a cliff-hanger, which helps this film hold together on it’s own and not just “Part One of a two-parter”.
Very smart, indeed.
A fun romp at the cinema - head out to the biggest screen possible to immerse yourself into this mission, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A fun, escapist, action film that is satisfying (and not dumb), MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD
Fresh off his cinema-saving success with TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Cruise (and Director Christopher McQuarrie) comes back with another giant summer tentpole film - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE - and they hit it out of the park again.
The 7th film in the Mission Impossible franchise (which debuted, incredibly, 27 years ago), DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE reunites Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) with his band of hero/outlaws to stop yet another world-wide crisis. It’s familiar ground but it is the journey not the destination that makes these types of films work and the journey (which, to be honest, is just an excuse to jump from action set piece to action set piece) is a fun one filled with comfortable characters/actors both old and new.
Besides Cruise (who’s got the Ethan Hunt character down), DR1 is filled with Hunt’s “regular” crew, Luther (Vingh Rhames - the only other actor besides Cruise to be in every MI film), Benji (SImon Pegg - around since MI 3) and Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson - on board since film 5). These are all familiar, comfortable characters and when the band gets back together about 1/2 way through the film, it felt liking sinking into your couch after a long, hard (but good) day of work to watch your favorite comfort show.
McQuarrie, wisely, populates the rest of the film with new, but comfortably familiar, faces such as Haley Atwell (Agent Carter in the MCU), Shea Wigham (ironically, he played Atwell’s boss in the Agent Carter TV Series), Pom Klementieff as Paris (the name of the character Leonard Nimoy played in the TV Series). Klementieff is also a veteran of the MCU having played Mantis in the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Esai Morales (one of the bosses in NYPD BLUE) and Cary Elwes (the Princess Bride). All bring their “A” game to the adventure and all of them acquit themselves just fine.
Oh…and Henry Czerny reprises his role as Kittridge from the first Mission Impossible film - and it was good to see him, too as was Vanessa Kirby’s re-appearance as Hunt’s “frenemie”, The White Widow (in a role that is a bit more expanded).
But, of course, all of these actors/performances takes a back seat to the action sequences and McQuarrie and Cruise are at the top of their game here. The big action set pieces are a marvel to watch - very enjoyable, exciting, nerve-wracking and easy to follow with some sense of humor rolled in. Unlike another big action flick (that leaned more towards the over-the-top comic-book type action), this Mission Impossible film relies on tension to make these action scenes pop off the screen - and McQuarrie succeeds.
Since this film is labeled as “Part One” you would expect to this film to end on a cliff-hanger and McQuarrie/Cruise were smart about that, too. It is more of “the mission isn’t finished” than a cliff-hanger, which helps this film hold together on it’s own and not just “Part One of a two-parter”.
Very smart, indeed.
A fun romp at the cinema - head out to the biggest screen possible to immerse yourself into this mission, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A fun, escapist, action film that is satisfying (and not dumb), MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Something Borrowed (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“Sometimes good people do bad things!”
Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) is a successful New York City lawyer, the ever-loyal and perpetual good girl, who, on the night of her surprise 30th birthday party, sleeps with Dex, her old study buddy and secret crush from law school. Unfortunately, Dex happens to be the fiancé of Rachel’s egotistical best friend Darcy’s (Kate Hudson). Throughout the movie you find Rachel conflicted with the thought of hurting her best friend because she has just realized she is in love with Dex (Colin Egglesfield). Dex feels equally guilty for having fallen for Rachel but would rather do what everyone expects him to do, as opposed to following his heart.
As Rachel tries to assist the self-absorbed party girl Darcy plan her wedding, she finds it difficult to to hide her feelings for Dex. Rachel and Darcy’s childhood friend Ethan (John Krasinski) figures out that Rachel and Dex are more than just friends. He lends a shoulder for Rachel to lean on as well as some very harsh criticisms to help her realize that she does deserve to be happy.
Based on the novel written by Emily Giffin, Something Borrowed is a romantic comedy that explores the true meaning of friendship, love and ethics. Always a fan of Ginnifer Goodwin, she does a decent job at playing our heroine/doormat, Rachel White. Kate Hudson was spot-on with the role of self-centered, always-gets-her-way Darcy. And let’s not forget the Tom Cruise look-alike, Colin Egglesfield, who for some reason didn’t impress me much as Dex. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there was definitely something missing there. Plug in some weekend getaways to the Hamptons, some awkward drinking and partying moments, some flashback moments of Darcy and Rachel’s childhood as well as flashbacks to Rachel’s law school days when she was swooning over Dex and voila! A mediocre, very predictable movie. I’d have to say if it wasn’t for the sarcastic comedic stylings of John Krasinski as Ethan, this movie would have been a major flop.
This film is definitely a twist on My Best Friend’s Wedding, but not in the best way. If nothing else, it’s worth seeing as a “girls night out” kind of movie!
Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) is a successful New York City lawyer, the ever-loyal and perpetual good girl, who, on the night of her surprise 30th birthday party, sleeps with Dex, her old study buddy and secret crush from law school. Unfortunately, Dex happens to be the fiancé of Rachel’s egotistical best friend Darcy’s (Kate Hudson). Throughout the movie you find Rachel conflicted with the thought of hurting her best friend because she has just realized she is in love with Dex (Colin Egglesfield). Dex feels equally guilty for having fallen for Rachel but would rather do what everyone expects him to do, as opposed to following his heart.
As Rachel tries to assist the self-absorbed party girl Darcy plan her wedding, she finds it difficult to to hide her feelings for Dex. Rachel and Darcy’s childhood friend Ethan (John Krasinski) figures out that Rachel and Dex are more than just friends. He lends a shoulder for Rachel to lean on as well as some very harsh criticisms to help her realize that she does deserve to be happy.
Based on the novel written by Emily Giffin, Something Borrowed is a romantic comedy that explores the true meaning of friendship, love and ethics. Always a fan of Ginnifer Goodwin, she does a decent job at playing our heroine/doormat, Rachel White. Kate Hudson was spot-on with the role of self-centered, always-gets-her-way Darcy. And let’s not forget the Tom Cruise look-alike, Colin Egglesfield, who for some reason didn’t impress me much as Dex. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there was definitely something missing there. Plug in some weekend getaways to the Hamptons, some awkward drinking and partying moments, some flashback moments of Darcy and Rachel’s childhood as well as flashbacks to Rachel’s law school days when she was swooning over Dex and voila! A mediocre, very predictable movie. I’d have to say if it wasn’t for the sarcastic comedic stylings of John Krasinski as Ethan, this movie would have been a major flop.
This film is definitely a twist on My Best Friend’s Wedding, but not in the best way. If nothing else, it’s worth seeing as a “girls night out” kind of movie!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
Doesn't Quite Succeed In What It Was Attempting To Do
Liam Neeson has stated that COLD PURSUIT is going to be his last action film. And, if that is the case, he certainly picked an interesting one to go out on.
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)