Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kyera (8 KP) rated Stalking Jack the Ripper in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Stalking Jack the Ripper is a fascinating, fictional take on the reign of terror that gripped London in the late 1800's. The story is told through the eyes of a teen girl, Audrey Rose, who is doing her best to study under her uncle's tutelage - as a forensic scientist. She is drawn into the murders, even though her family and society does not agree with her inclusion in the affair as it is not right for ladies to be interested in such things.
The author did a brilliant job weaving what facts we know historically about Jack the Ripper into her carefully crafted narrative. The dialogue is a bit clunky at times and the pacing could have been better, but overall I enjoyed this book. Some people felt that the perpetrator was obvious from the first moment they stepped on the scene, but I didn't feel that way. It seemed like the suspense and horror built over the course of the book until you finally realize who the killer is in the final moments before its reveal.
The characters were both a high and low point in the book. I enjoyed the fact that the main character was meant to be a more progressive person than women in her time generally, but sometimes her inner dialogues were strange moments of her thinking utterly ridiculous thoughts and then immediately dismissing them like oh no that cannot be. She desires to be both pretty and fierce and does not understand why society feels that she cannot be both. Audrey Rose also has a propensity for charging into dangerous situations with no planning, when a murderer is stalking the streets looking for women to cut apart. It's difficult to explain how all of those things combined to affect her portrayal, but overall it made her seem less strong, much more insecure, and significantly less grounded than I feel the author was hoping to portray her.
Thomas Cresswell, on the other hand, is the witty British boy that you can help but love when he enters a scene. He made brilliant deductions and didn't miss a moment attempting to seduce Miss Audrey Rose. The two of them together were such a fun team, even if Audrey Rose's inner dialogue was frustratingly superficial. Oh, I hate this boy, oh, I can't help but want to kiss him, he's terrible, he's wonderful. Please, Audrey Rose, control your emotions and be the strong heroine we deserve in this book. Together, they were very reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.
The author creates a vivid landscape upon which this gruesome tableau takes place. That being said, I would definitely caution some readers from this book as the violence is quite explicitly described. It can definitely be too much for some younger readers or people who are squeamish. If you feel like you're okay with the gory details and enjoy forensic science, I believe you will enjoy this book.
The author did a brilliant job weaving what facts we know historically about Jack the Ripper into her carefully crafted narrative. The dialogue is a bit clunky at times and the pacing could have been better, but overall I enjoyed this book. Some people felt that the perpetrator was obvious from the first moment they stepped on the scene, but I didn't feel that way. It seemed like the suspense and horror built over the course of the book until you finally realize who the killer is in the final moments before its reveal.
The characters were both a high and low point in the book. I enjoyed the fact that the main character was meant to be a more progressive person than women in her time generally, but sometimes her inner dialogues were strange moments of her thinking utterly ridiculous thoughts and then immediately dismissing them like oh no that cannot be. She desires to be both pretty and fierce and does not understand why society feels that she cannot be both. Audrey Rose also has a propensity for charging into dangerous situations with no planning, when a murderer is stalking the streets looking for women to cut apart. It's difficult to explain how all of those things combined to affect her portrayal, but overall it made her seem less strong, much more insecure, and significantly less grounded than I feel the author was hoping to portray her.
Thomas Cresswell, on the other hand, is the witty British boy that you can help but love when he enters a scene. He made brilliant deductions and didn't miss a moment attempting to seduce Miss Audrey Rose. The two of them together were such a fun team, even if Audrey Rose's inner dialogue was frustratingly superficial. Oh, I hate this boy, oh, I can't help but want to kiss him, he's terrible, he's wonderful. Please, Audrey Rose, control your emotions and be the strong heroine we deserve in this book. Together, they were very reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.
The author creates a vivid landscape upon which this gruesome tableau takes place. That being said, I would definitely caution some readers from this book as the violence is quite explicitly described. It can definitely be too much for some younger readers or people who are squeamish. If you feel like you're okay with the gory details and enjoy forensic science, I believe you will enjoy this book.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Mar 14, 2018
Thoughtful, provocative murder mystery
The back 1/2 of August has traditionally been a dumping ground for bad motion pictures. One exception to this was last year when the deserved Oscar nominated film HELL OR HIGH WATER was released (if you still haven't caught up with this, I highly recommend you do). So when I saw that the writer of HHW, Taylor Sheridan, was coming out with another modern sheriff murder mystery, I was intrigued to say the least.
And, I am happy to report, that this film did not disappoint. While it is not at the level of HHW, it certainly is a thoughtful, provocative murder mystery that is a refreshing change from the normal SuperHero, GGI-fests that festoon the cineplex throughout the course of the summer months.
Written and Directed by Sheridan (the screenwriter of HHW and SICARIO), WIND RIVER tells the tale of a murder on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. Coming in to investigate is young, city girl, Florida native, Elizabeth Olsen who teams up with aTribal Police Captain (Graham Greene) and a veteran tracker (Jeremy Renner) to find out what happened.
This could have been a by-the-book murder mystery with the naive, "fish-out-of-water" Olsen learning to love and understand the world she is thrust into, but in the hands (and pen) of Sheridan, it is much, much more. Sheridan creates a mood throughout this film, one of slow, lingering dread and hopelessness - and how he accomplishes this was intriguing to me. He uses the setting of the Indian Reservation to show the "smallness" of the people living there, juxtaposing scenes of vast, wild, cold wilderness with scenes of squalor in the settlement of Native American people living there.
The acting is solid - Olsen is turning into a very good actress and her performance sets the right tone. Greene is, as always, a steady hand on the screen with a pragmatic approach to the inhabitants of the Reservation, but it is Jeremy Renner as the quiet, taciturn tracker who has a loss of his own that parallels the murder investigation, that shines. I've always liked Renner and was high on his potential after his breakout performance in THE HURT LOCKER in 2008. While his performances in the blockbusters that followed have been solid, but not spectacular - you saw glimpses of it in films like THE TOWN - but I've felt that he never quite lived up to that potential - until now. This is a very strong performance (falling just short of Oscar material) but one that anchors this film and mirrors the mood that Sheridan sets up through the location of WIND RIVER.
Not the fastest moving of films, but a thoughtful, intelligent mystery that left me grateful for a film with some meat on the bone after a summer of "Cotton Candy" action flicks
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, I am happy to report, that this film did not disappoint. While it is not at the level of HHW, it certainly is a thoughtful, provocative murder mystery that is a refreshing change from the normal SuperHero, GGI-fests that festoon the cineplex throughout the course of the summer months.
Written and Directed by Sheridan (the screenwriter of HHW and SICARIO), WIND RIVER tells the tale of a murder on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. Coming in to investigate is young, city girl, Florida native, Elizabeth Olsen who teams up with aTribal Police Captain (Graham Greene) and a veteran tracker (Jeremy Renner) to find out what happened.
This could have been a by-the-book murder mystery with the naive, "fish-out-of-water" Olsen learning to love and understand the world she is thrust into, but in the hands (and pen) of Sheridan, it is much, much more. Sheridan creates a mood throughout this film, one of slow, lingering dread and hopelessness - and how he accomplishes this was intriguing to me. He uses the setting of the Indian Reservation to show the "smallness" of the people living there, juxtaposing scenes of vast, wild, cold wilderness with scenes of squalor in the settlement of Native American people living there.
The acting is solid - Olsen is turning into a very good actress and her performance sets the right tone. Greene is, as always, a steady hand on the screen with a pragmatic approach to the inhabitants of the Reservation, but it is Jeremy Renner as the quiet, taciturn tracker who has a loss of his own that parallels the murder investigation, that shines. I've always liked Renner and was high on his potential after his breakout performance in THE HURT LOCKER in 2008. While his performances in the blockbusters that followed have been solid, but not spectacular - you saw glimpses of it in films like THE TOWN - but I've felt that he never quite lived up to that potential - until now. This is a very strong performance (falling just short of Oscar material) but one that anchors this film and mirrors the mood that Sheridan sets up through the location of WIND RIVER.
Not the fastest moving of films, but a thoughtful, intelligent mystery that left me grateful for a film with some meat on the bone after a summer of "Cotton Candy" action flicks
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Prince of Fools in Books
Nov 25, 2019
Mark Lawrence's previous Broken Empire trilogy was a terrific read, starring as it did an almost perfect anti-hero in shape of Jorg Ancrath, a character who in any other books would have been the major villain.
It was hard to see where Lawrence could go from there. The answer is 'up'. Set in the same world as Broken Empire the events in Prince of Fools take place at roughly the same time as those of Prince of Thorns but following someone who is manipulated by a different set of players than Jorg.
Prince Jalan is the grandson of the Red Queen. He is too far from the throne to have to think seriously about ruling but close enough that he can rely on his rank to provide him a life of luxury - and to get him out of trouble if needs be. He is indolent, self-centered and vain and spends his time either drinking, gambling or trying to bed various women. He describes himself at the start of the book as 'A liar, a cheat and a coward' and he certainly always tries to take the easy path through anything and avoid any actual work or responsibilities.
But things are about to change. He ends up being forced to leave the comforts of court and city life and travel with a companion he doesn't care for on a quest he has no interest in. But he follows along, complaining all the way and plotting on ways to return to the life of leisure and pleasure that he craves.
Whereas Jorg's general reaction to someone in his way is to kill them, Jalan will wheedle, plead or just plain bribe them to get what he wants and on the rare occasions he has to wield a sword he is so shockingly incompetent he is actually dangerous.
The story is excellent; there is a definite impetus and personal reason for the quest and a final showdown in which a terrible truth is revealed. More of the fate of the Broken Empire is revealed as Jalan and his companion travel across it, as well as more of the geography. Jalan's dislike for travel is clear and the descriptions are coloured by his perceptions - it's always too wet or too cold or too flat or too mountainous.
There are some terrific scenes with Lawrence's black humour very much to the fore as in the previous books. There are meetings with characters from the previous trilogy that are like meeting old friends (and yes Jorg and Jalan do cross storylines at a crucial point for both of them).
I would absolutely recommend this book to anyone looking for a great story with absorbing characters, laugh out loud humour and great battle scenes. If you liked Jorg read this book. If you like zombies read this book. If you like vikings read this book. Actually, just read the book. You won't regret it.
It was hard to see where Lawrence could go from there. The answer is 'up'. Set in the same world as Broken Empire the events in Prince of Fools take place at roughly the same time as those of Prince of Thorns but following someone who is manipulated by a different set of players than Jorg.
Prince Jalan is the grandson of the Red Queen. He is too far from the throne to have to think seriously about ruling but close enough that he can rely on his rank to provide him a life of luxury - and to get him out of trouble if needs be. He is indolent, self-centered and vain and spends his time either drinking, gambling or trying to bed various women. He describes himself at the start of the book as 'A liar, a cheat and a coward' and he certainly always tries to take the easy path through anything and avoid any actual work or responsibilities.
But things are about to change. He ends up being forced to leave the comforts of court and city life and travel with a companion he doesn't care for on a quest he has no interest in. But he follows along, complaining all the way and plotting on ways to return to the life of leisure and pleasure that he craves.
Whereas Jorg's general reaction to someone in his way is to kill them, Jalan will wheedle, plead or just plain bribe them to get what he wants and on the rare occasions he has to wield a sword he is so shockingly incompetent he is actually dangerous.
The story is excellent; there is a definite impetus and personal reason for the quest and a final showdown in which a terrible truth is revealed. More of the fate of the Broken Empire is revealed as Jalan and his companion travel across it, as well as more of the geography. Jalan's dislike for travel is clear and the descriptions are coloured by his perceptions - it's always too wet or too cold or too flat or too mountainous.
There are some terrific scenes with Lawrence's black humour very much to the fore as in the previous books. There are meetings with characters from the previous trilogy that are like meeting old friends (and yes Jorg and Jalan do cross storylines at a crucial point for both of them).
I would absolutely recommend this book to anyone looking for a great story with absorbing characters, laugh out loud humour and great battle scenes. If you liked Jorg read this book. If you like zombies read this book. If you like vikings read this book. Actually, just read the book. You won't regret it.
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated Beautiful Creatures (Caster Chronicles, #1) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
I was made aware of this book when, at the cinema to see Les Miserables, I saw the trailer for the film adaptation. Apart from loving the song, which immediately went on my iPod when I got home (Seven Devils – Florence + the Machine), what I saw caught my attention enough to jot down the name and read the book.
Beautiful Creatures is set in the fictional town of Gatlin, South Carolina. Ethan Wate, from whose perspective the book is written, describes his town’s residents as either “stupid or stuck”, and can’t wait to leave, bored with the banality of his life. Fairly soon into the book, the reader is pulled into his dream, where we meet a girl smelling of lemons and rosemary, in need of help. A girl who, although he hasn’t yet met her, Ethan can’t live without.
The girl is Lena Duchannes (“Duchannes rhymes with rain”), with black hair, green eyes, and mysterious powers that see her surrounded by the pathetic fallacy. It’s often raining when Lena’s upset, and at one point there’s even a tornado. Lena’s a Caster, a broader term for a witch that, within her family, also includes a palimpsest, a siren and an incubus. The main premise of the story is that Lena’s family is cursed, and on the night of their sixteenth birthday each member of that family becomes ‘claimed’ as either a dark or light Caster. Lena keeps a count on her hand of how many days she has left until this night, but until she gets to that point, she’s tormented by a Carrie-esque group of Gatlin-born-and-raised girls, alongside much of the rest of the town.
I read quite a good blog post on this a few days ago, although, sorry, I can’t find it again for love nor money now! They pointed out that Ethan had a fair few feminine qualities (being very observant of Lena’s clothes, for example), but that if the story had been written from Lena’s perspective, it would have been 900 pages of teenage angst. I agree with that! It’s easy to see why she would be feeling so fraught though – it is made clear that she has no control over which way she will turn. If she is claimed as a Dark Caster, the book says, her personality will completely change, and she’ll no longer be able to see the family she has grown up with (apart from Ridley, I guess).
I did enjoy the story – it was fast paced, there was always enough going on to hold my attention, and there was a great twist at the end that I didn’t see coming. I really liked the fact that Lena craved normality, even though it was, ironically, the thing that Ethan hates about his town. As a teenager with medical/weight/my share of social issues, I could really relate to the idea that, despite whatever else she had going on, she just wanted to be able to do what everyone else does, no matter how boring or basic it may seem. That really resonated with me.
I was also really fascinated with the character of Ridley. She came strutting onto the scene and automatically made my jaw drop, as I think she was supposed to. Even when we’re told she’s a Dark Caster, her struggle with good and bad always seems to be lurking somewhere. <spoiler>I thought it really added grit to the book that she and Lena were best friends all through their childhood – you can really tell that Ridley still wants what’s best for Lena, even if that later translates to her trying to help Sarafine turn Lena towards the dark side. Then, later on, it’s obvious she has feelings for Link, and even the darkness within her can’t squash that. It’s an intriguing conflict!</spoiler>
However, I think this book will only ever be a guilty pleasure, and that’s because of the love thing. Now, I must admit, it’s not as bad as the Twilight film (which sickened me, and put me off reading the books), where Bella and Edward meet and she’s almost straight away “in love” with him. However, it’s still obvious almost from the beginning that by the end of the book, Lena and Ethan will have said those 3 overused, under-meant words – “I love you”. She’s 15, and he’s 16, by the way. <spoiler>The book manages to make it seem like their destiny by making their ancestors romantically linked, but I’m still not sure.</spoiler> I admit this may be because I’m slightly biased; I’ve never been in love, and didn’t actually have a boyfriend as a teenager. Maybe it is really easy to fall in love, I don’t know. To me though, being realistic is important – even in a fantasy book. As a reader, I need to be able to relate to the characters in some way, and it seemed like a cliche to make their feelings so intense, despite the events in the book.
Then, there’s the ending. While I really enjoyed the twist at the end, it was over too quickly. <spoiler>There was so much build up to meeting Sarafine, only for her to die (it seemed like) 10 minutes after she was first introduced. Plus, what happened to Ridley? Technically, Lena didn’t choose a side, so I do want to read further on in the series to see what happened to her – I’ll be really disappointed if she’s just forgotten about. As well as this, I want to know more about the name changes – why are they necessary, and do the new names fit them better somehow?</spoiler>
Well, if you’ve made it through my rambling, I’m impressed! I know I haven’t mentioned several important characters (Amma, for one), but I’ve covered most of the things I remember thinking about the book. Overall, I did like it and I reckon I'll see the film when it comes out on DVD, as well as reading more of the series, but I did see some parallels with Twilight, which isn't necessarily a good thing!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Beautiful Creatures is set in the fictional town of Gatlin, South Carolina. Ethan Wate, from whose perspective the book is written, describes his town’s residents as either “stupid or stuck”, and can’t wait to leave, bored with the banality of his life. Fairly soon into the book, the reader is pulled into his dream, where we meet a girl smelling of lemons and rosemary, in need of help. A girl who, although he hasn’t yet met her, Ethan can’t live without.
The girl is Lena Duchannes (“Duchannes rhymes with rain”), with black hair, green eyes, and mysterious powers that see her surrounded by the pathetic fallacy. It’s often raining when Lena’s upset, and at one point there’s even a tornado. Lena’s a Caster, a broader term for a witch that, within her family, also includes a palimpsest, a siren and an incubus. The main premise of the story is that Lena’s family is cursed, and on the night of their sixteenth birthday each member of that family becomes ‘claimed’ as either a dark or light Caster. Lena keeps a count on her hand of how many days she has left until this night, but until she gets to that point, she’s tormented by a Carrie-esque group of Gatlin-born-and-raised girls, alongside much of the rest of the town.
I read quite a good blog post on this a few days ago, although, sorry, I can’t find it again for love nor money now! They pointed out that Ethan had a fair few feminine qualities (being very observant of Lena’s clothes, for example), but that if the story had been written from Lena’s perspective, it would have been 900 pages of teenage angst. I agree with that! It’s easy to see why she would be feeling so fraught though – it is made clear that she has no control over which way she will turn. If she is claimed as a Dark Caster, the book says, her personality will completely change, and she’ll no longer be able to see the family she has grown up with (apart from Ridley, I guess).
I did enjoy the story – it was fast paced, there was always enough going on to hold my attention, and there was a great twist at the end that I didn’t see coming. I really liked the fact that Lena craved normality, even though it was, ironically, the thing that Ethan hates about his town. As a teenager with medical/weight/my share of social issues, I could really relate to the idea that, despite whatever else she had going on, she just wanted to be able to do what everyone else does, no matter how boring or basic it may seem. That really resonated with me.
I was also really fascinated with the character of Ridley. She came strutting onto the scene and automatically made my jaw drop, as I think she was supposed to. Even when we’re told she’s a Dark Caster, her struggle with good and bad always seems to be lurking somewhere. <spoiler>I thought it really added grit to the book that she and Lena were best friends all through their childhood – you can really tell that Ridley still wants what’s best for Lena, even if that later translates to her trying to help Sarafine turn Lena towards the dark side. Then, later on, it’s obvious she has feelings for Link, and even the darkness within her can’t squash that. It’s an intriguing conflict!</spoiler>
However, I think this book will only ever be a guilty pleasure, and that’s because of the love thing. Now, I must admit, it’s not as bad as the Twilight film (which sickened me, and put me off reading the books), where Bella and Edward meet and she’s almost straight away “in love” with him. However, it’s still obvious almost from the beginning that by the end of the book, Lena and Ethan will have said those 3 overused, under-meant words – “I love you”. She’s 15, and he’s 16, by the way. <spoiler>The book manages to make it seem like their destiny by making their ancestors romantically linked, but I’m still not sure.</spoiler> I admit this may be because I’m slightly biased; I’ve never been in love, and didn’t actually have a boyfriend as a teenager. Maybe it is really easy to fall in love, I don’t know. To me though, being realistic is important – even in a fantasy book. As a reader, I need to be able to relate to the characters in some way, and it seemed like a cliche to make their feelings so intense, despite the events in the book.
Then, there’s the ending. While I really enjoyed the twist at the end, it was over too quickly. <spoiler>There was so much build up to meeting Sarafine, only for her to die (it seemed like) 10 minutes after she was first introduced. Plus, what happened to Ridley? Technically, Lena didn’t choose a side, so I do want to read further on in the series to see what happened to her – I’ll be really disappointed if she’s just forgotten about. As well as this, I want to know more about the name changes – why are they necessary, and do the new names fit them better somehow?</spoiler>
Well, if you’ve made it through my rambling, I’m impressed! I know I haven’t mentioned several important characters (Amma, for one), but I’ve covered most of the things I remember thinking about the book. Overall, I did like it and I reckon I'll see the film when it comes out on DVD, as well as reading more of the series, but I did see some parallels with Twilight, which isn't necessarily a good thing!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
May 20, 2018
A Modern Classic
I have a confession to make - INCEPTION is one of my favorite Christopher Nolan films - and, perhaps, it is in my list of TOP 10 ALL TIME FAVORITE films, so this might not be a fair and impartial review of the film. To be fair to me, I did make a conscience effort whilst watching this movie to scrape away my previous preconceptions and opinions of this film and just let it wash over me in this "new light" of my blog to see what my reaction is.
My reaction: I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
I was asked how far back do you have to go before you can consider a film a "classic" and, I guess, I'd have to say 2010, for this film - to me - is a classic.
In INCEPTION, Nolan, and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan, go into the dreamworld with the premise that we can join in "shared dreams" to extract information from people that are locked away deep in their conscious (or in some cases unconscious) minds. This film deals with the idea of "Inception", planting an idea into someone's mind. This is, in essence, a "heist" film where our team of heroes is constantly at war with the minds they are inhabiting (since they are seen as parasites). The clock is ticking and they must get in and get out before they get lost.
Speaking of time, Nolan - once again - plays with the idea of time in this film. Once you go into a dream, 1 minute is like 1 hour and when you go into a dream of a dream, then 1 minute is like 60 hours and when you go into a dream within a dream within a dream, then...well...you get the idea.
If someone loses their way in this film, it's because they are trying to make logical sense of a dream world that defies physics - and time. My suggestion to you is to let go and let the movie take you to some fantastical places - with some fantastical imagery and plot machinations - that I enjoyed the heck out of.
Helping out this film is that it is impeccably cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb the head of this group that enters the dream realm. He is perfectly cast and Nolan, and this film, relies on his likeableness, his charm and the feeling that something just isn't quite right with him. All to very good effect. Ellen Page is strong as Ariadne, the rookie of the team that is our eyes and ears into this world. Ken Watanabe brings his typically strong game to the role of Saito - the man that gives the team the job and goes along for the ride. Nolan regular Cillian Murphy is a welcome addition as the person who they are trying to "Incept" and even small parts are filled with wonderful character actors like the late great, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Berenger and good ol' Michael Caine.
But it is the emergence of two of the co-stars that, up until this film I thought were "fair actors but not great" that really elevates this film for me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was always the "long haired kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN", but in this - as Cobb's right-hand man Arthur - he excels and really jumps out of the film as a screen presence. Of course, it really helps him that he has one of the best action sequences - for the most part practically shot - that I have ever scene. And, of course, there's TOM HARDY. He is a movie star and really shows it in the supporting role of Eames. This guy will win an Oscar one day, probably for a film that Nolan Directs him in.
My only quibble - and it is a QUIBBLE - is that I didn't really feel any strong chemistry between Marion Cotillard's Mal and DiCaprio's Cobb. She was supposed to be the big "love of his life" and I just didn't sense that. She was very good - and imposing - as she infiltrated Cobb's mind (which is, I think, the purpose of her character), but I could have used a little more between her and DiCaprio. But...as I say...a quibble.
All in all, a terrific - different - film. One that I am calling a "classic".
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
My reaction: I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
I was asked how far back do you have to go before you can consider a film a "classic" and, I guess, I'd have to say 2010, for this film - to me - is a classic.
In INCEPTION, Nolan, and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan, go into the dreamworld with the premise that we can join in "shared dreams" to extract information from people that are locked away deep in their conscious (or in some cases unconscious) minds. This film deals with the idea of "Inception", planting an idea into someone's mind. This is, in essence, a "heist" film where our team of heroes is constantly at war with the minds they are inhabiting (since they are seen as parasites). The clock is ticking and they must get in and get out before they get lost.
Speaking of time, Nolan - once again - plays with the idea of time in this film. Once you go into a dream, 1 minute is like 1 hour and when you go into a dream of a dream, then 1 minute is like 60 hours and when you go into a dream within a dream within a dream, then...well...you get the idea.
If someone loses their way in this film, it's because they are trying to make logical sense of a dream world that defies physics - and time. My suggestion to you is to let go and let the movie take you to some fantastical places - with some fantastical imagery and plot machinations - that I enjoyed the heck out of.
Helping out this film is that it is impeccably cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb the head of this group that enters the dream realm. He is perfectly cast and Nolan, and this film, relies on his likeableness, his charm and the feeling that something just isn't quite right with him. All to very good effect. Ellen Page is strong as Ariadne, the rookie of the team that is our eyes and ears into this world. Ken Watanabe brings his typically strong game to the role of Saito - the man that gives the team the job and goes along for the ride. Nolan regular Cillian Murphy is a welcome addition as the person who they are trying to "Incept" and even small parts are filled with wonderful character actors like the late great, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Berenger and good ol' Michael Caine.
But it is the emergence of two of the co-stars that, up until this film I thought were "fair actors but not great" that really elevates this film for me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was always the "long haired kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN", but in this - as Cobb's right-hand man Arthur - he excels and really jumps out of the film as a screen presence. Of course, it really helps him that he has one of the best action sequences - for the most part practically shot - that I have ever scene. And, of course, there's TOM HARDY. He is a movie star and really shows it in the supporting role of Eames. This guy will win an Oscar one day, probably for a film that Nolan Directs him in.
My only quibble - and it is a QUIBBLE - is that I didn't really feel any strong chemistry between Marion Cotillard's Mal and DiCaprio's Cobb. She was supposed to be the big "love of his life" and I just didn't sense that. She was very good - and imposing - as she infiltrated Cobb's mind (which is, I think, the purpose of her character), but I could have used a little more between her and DiCaprio. But...as I say...a quibble.
All in all, a terrific - different - film. One that I am calling a "classic".
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Passion of the Christ (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Perhaps the most controversial film of our time “The Passion of the Christ” has arrived amidst much speculation and controversy. Not since “The Last Temptation of Christ” has a film garnered so much controversy and that film did not have a mega-star like Mel Gibson attached to it nor a wide-release reported to reach 2500 screens in the U.S. alone.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated My Hero Academia: Heroes Rising (2020) in Movies
Mar 12, 2020
It was very exciting to finally get an anime screening at my local Cineworld. We don't seem to get considered for these different screenings very often so it made a nice change to see something a little unusual.
A class of superheroes-in-training are sent to an island where the resident hero has retired. Getting experience is the best way to learn and getting to know the people around them will help them learn what they're fighting for.
The day to day hero life is hum-drum but fulfilling and most of the trainees are settling in well. Things are about to change, a spate of superpower robberies take place and it seems the culprits are heading for the island.
I've read manga in the past and have seen snippets of anime from time to time but I don't think I've ever sat down to a whole film of it apart from Pokemon. Possibly I shouldn't have started with something fairly deep in an existing franchise but I wasn't aware of it beforehand, and actually, I would have said it could have been a standalone after watching it.
It was really nice to see so many people there for it, there were about 30 others which felt like quite a lot for our cinema, more than I was expecting... and by the look of it there were all young enough to be my kids, so that was a fun experience.
I'm not going to lie, I was very confused at the beginning. It opens on a chase sequence and with no idea who these characters were or what was happening, I was lost. It doesn't take too long to get the gist of everything after this but it really threw me for a while.
On the advice of Twitter peeps I went and saw the subtitled release rather than the dubbed, this would have been my personal choice too as I find dubbing a rather hit and miss format. I'm not sure what might be lost in translation but some of the dialogue didn't seem natural, it might be an interesting experience to see it again with a dubbed track over it for the comparison.
You know when you're driving and looking for a turning so you can see where you're going better? During that first chase scene in particular the music is quite loud and the voices were hardly audible... I know I didn't need to head the audio as I wouldn't have understood it anyway but reading the subtitles without hearing the pacing was quite tricky and felt like it was partly why the scene was confusing to me. (This brings up all sorts of questions about subtitles when people HAVE to use them that I'd never even considered before.) The sound issue did get a little better as it progressed, but there was still a discrepancy through the film.
One good guy has to be virtuous and self-sacrificing, one has to be overly aggressive with a hidden soft side, another has to be adorably cute. Is that how they all work or just this one? Oh, and for the most part, everyone has to have great hair. I found either end of the scale of characters to be frustrating, Mahoro and Bakugo (I hope I'm getting these character names right) were on the aggressive side and the outbursts of screaming didn't make a lot of sense. There are several of the heroes that have a rather saccharine demeanour that also grated at me. Within the ensemble though there were characters like Deku and Katsuma who felt much more balanced, and Katsuma was so adorable to boot.
The story for the film seemed simple enough, bad guys want something, good guys have to protect it and stop them. Classic. But the back story to it seemed very complicated with a whole section of the film verging on unnecessary. This could be something that makes more sense with it combined with the series, but it's not something I'm going to know for now.
That may or may not have contributed to me struggling through the first 40 minutes of the film. I'm sure a little advanced knowledge might have helped, for example, I don't know whether Nine's motivations were established in the series. As it was it took me a while to work out.
Once we hit the confrontation of the film everything really picks up and I was a lot more engaged. As it progresses there's quite a strong moral compass that becomes evident and a lot of teachable moments are thrown at us, by the end I was really moved by some of the characters and their actions. Emotions were surprisingly well handled and the sense of right and wrong with them come across well.
I did have fun watching the film but there were things that held me back. The fact that the villain is well matched by a group of unattended school kids with only a partial grasp on their powers being one. Essentially the heroes come back for round two with nothing more than determination, but I get the sense that that all just helps with the sense that anyone can triumph over evil. I could rant on about this until the cows come home.
The biggest thing that held this back is not really a negative to the film, it's more that I'm a newbie to it. Anime is made up of several different styles, realistic, cartoonish, fantastical, that's a lot to deal with when you're not familiar with something. In a bad comparison for you it's like watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit? without knowing half the characters, you don't know why they look the way they do and you don't know what their function is. The only way that's going to make more sense to me is by watching more of it.
My Hero Academia: Heroes Rising is probably a good place for me to pick up some anime knowledge, once the film got going it was an enjoyable ride. As a nice surprise this also attracted the best audience I've had in quite a while.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/my-hero-academia-heroes-rising-movie.html
A class of superheroes-in-training are sent to an island where the resident hero has retired. Getting experience is the best way to learn and getting to know the people around them will help them learn what they're fighting for.
The day to day hero life is hum-drum but fulfilling and most of the trainees are settling in well. Things are about to change, a spate of superpower robberies take place and it seems the culprits are heading for the island.
I've read manga in the past and have seen snippets of anime from time to time but I don't think I've ever sat down to a whole film of it apart from Pokemon. Possibly I shouldn't have started with something fairly deep in an existing franchise but I wasn't aware of it beforehand, and actually, I would have said it could have been a standalone after watching it.
It was really nice to see so many people there for it, there were about 30 others which felt like quite a lot for our cinema, more than I was expecting... and by the look of it there were all young enough to be my kids, so that was a fun experience.
I'm not going to lie, I was very confused at the beginning. It opens on a chase sequence and with no idea who these characters were or what was happening, I was lost. It doesn't take too long to get the gist of everything after this but it really threw me for a while.
On the advice of Twitter peeps I went and saw the subtitled release rather than the dubbed, this would have been my personal choice too as I find dubbing a rather hit and miss format. I'm not sure what might be lost in translation but some of the dialogue didn't seem natural, it might be an interesting experience to see it again with a dubbed track over it for the comparison.
You know when you're driving and looking for a turning so you can see where you're going better? During that first chase scene in particular the music is quite loud and the voices were hardly audible... I know I didn't need to head the audio as I wouldn't have understood it anyway but reading the subtitles without hearing the pacing was quite tricky and felt like it was partly why the scene was confusing to me. (This brings up all sorts of questions about subtitles when people HAVE to use them that I'd never even considered before.) The sound issue did get a little better as it progressed, but there was still a discrepancy through the film.
One good guy has to be virtuous and self-sacrificing, one has to be overly aggressive with a hidden soft side, another has to be adorably cute. Is that how they all work or just this one? Oh, and for the most part, everyone has to have great hair. I found either end of the scale of characters to be frustrating, Mahoro and Bakugo (I hope I'm getting these character names right) were on the aggressive side and the outbursts of screaming didn't make a lot of sense. There are several of the heroes that have a rather saccharine demeanour that also grated at me. Within the ensemble though there were characters like Deku and Katsuma who felt much more balanced, and Katsuma was so adorable to boot.
The story for the film seemed simple enough, bad guys want something, good guys have to protect it and stop them. Classic. But the back story to it seemed very complicated with a whole section of the film verging on unnecessary. This could be something that makes more sense with it combined with the series, but it's not something I'm going to know for now.
That may or may not have contributed to me struggling through the first 40 minutes of the film. I'm sure a little advanced knowledge might have helped, for example, I don't know whether Nine's motivations were established in the series. As it was it took me a while to work out.
Once we hit the confrontation of the film everything really picks up and I was a lot more engaged. As it progresses there's quite a strong moral compass that becomes evident and a lot of teachable moments are thrown at us, by the end I was really moved by some of the characters and their actions. Emotions were surprisingly well handled and the sense of right and wrong with them come across well.
I did have fun watching the film but there were things that held me back. The fact that the villain is well matched by a group of unattended school kids with only a partial grasp on their powers being one. Essentially the heroes come back for round two with nothing more than determination, but I get the sense that that all just helps with the sense that anyone can triumph over evil. I could rant on about this until the cows come home.
The biggest thing that held this back is not really a negative to the film, it's more that I'm a newbie to it. Anime is made up of several different styles, realistic, cartoonish, fantastical, that's a lot to deal with when you're not familiar with something. In a bad comparison for you it's like watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit? without knowing half the characters, you don't know why they look the way they do and you don't know what their function is. The only way that's going to make more sense to me is by watching more of it.
My Hero Academia: Heroes Rising is probably a good place for me to pick up some anime knowledge, once the film got going it was an enjoyable ride. As a nice surprise this also attracted the best audience I've had in quite a while.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/my-hero-academia-heroes-rising-movie.html
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Focus (2015) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
The problem with Focus is that it treats its audience like we're all as dumb as nails. While the film itself is entertaining, its cons are unconvincing, and it's not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
After watching Focus, I thought back to a great line from Will Smith’s con artist character Nicky Spurgeon, in which he proclaims, “There’s two kinds of people in this world. There’s hammers and nails. You decide which one you want to be.” It’s a powerful and chilling line of dialogue that emphasizes Nicky’s need to exert power and control over others in order to be successful in his indecent business. The problem with the film, however, is that it treats its audience like we’re all as dumb as nails.
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018
All time classic
"I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)