Search
Search results
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth in Books
Sep 7, 2017
Amazing, easy-to-read memoir
Wow. Just wow. I woke up far earlier than I wanted to this morning, so I picked up one of the nonfiction books I had from the library, expecting it to put me back to sleep. Three hours later I was still awake, nearly done with the book, and absolutely enthralled. I’m not sure why I thought it would be otherwise – I’d been one of the millions fascinated with Hadfield’s videos and tweets when he was Commander of the ISS. His particular voice is very clear throughout this book. In 284 pages he takes us from his childhood, through his career path to becoming an astronaut, to his 5 months in the International Space Station, and back home. Nothing felt rushed, nothing felt like it didn’t get the attention it deserved. I’m pretty sure this is going to be one of my favorite books of 2017 – I have several months to read more things, but this book just absolutely blew me away.
It does appeal to how I like to read about science, though. I love reading about scientists. How they worked, how they made their discoveries, the paths they took. Who they were. I’m less interested in the actual science. This is part of why I loved A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, so much. I borrowed that book from the library and read it cover to cover, fascinated. Finally had to buy my own copy.
Hadfield took space exploration and made it accessible to everyone. According to the book, he didn’t even quite realize how big of an impact he was making at first. But between tweeting pictures from the ISS, making videos of how different life was in space, and making music videos, he really did become the most well-known astronaut of our generation. I remember putting his video of I.S.S. (Is Somebody Singing) on repeat when it came out – and it STILL gives me chills today.
He only briefly talked about Is Somebody Singing in the book, which I found surprising, given it was the one that hit me the hardest. He spent more time talking about filming and recording Space Oddity – which does have 36 million views, to I.S.S.’s 2 million. So I suppose that makes sense! (I'm going to attach both videos to the book page.)
One thing he keeps coming back to in his book is his philosophy of trying to be a zero. That doesn’t sound very ambitious on the surface – but what he means is you can be one of three things in a group. You can be a negative impact (a -1) a neutral impact (a zero) or a positive impact (a +1). If you try to be a +1, it’s far likelier that you’ll try too hard, fuck up, and instead become a negative impact. So aim to be a zero. And most of the time you’ll wind up as a positive impact. I thought that was a very unique philosophy.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
It does appeal to how I like to read about science, though. I love reading about scientists. How they worked, how they made their discoveries, the paths they took. Who they were. I’m less interested in the actual science. This is part of why I loved A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, so much. I borrowed that book from the library and read it cover to cover, fascinated. Finally had to buy my own copy.
Hadfield took space exploration and made it accessible to everyone. According to the book, he didn’t even quite realize how big of an impact he was making at first. But between tweeting pictures from the ISS, making videos of how different life was in space, and making music videos, he really did become the most well-known astronaut of our generation. I remember putting his video of I.S.S. (Is Somebody Singing) on repeat when it came out – and it STILL gives me chills today.
He only briefly talked about Is Somebody Singing in the book, which I found surprising, given it was the one that hit me the hardest. He spent more time talking about filming and recording Space Oddity – which does have 36 million views, to I.S.S.’s 2 million. So I suppose that makes sense! (I'm going to attach both videos to the book page.)
One thing he keeps coming back to in his book is his philosophy of trying to be a zero. That doesn’t sound very ambitious on the surface – but what he means is you can be one of three things in a group. You can be a negative impact (a -1) a neutral impact (a zero) or a positive impact (a +1). If you try to be a +1, it’s far likelier that you’ll try too hard, fuck up, and instead become a negative impact. So aim to be a zero. And most of the time you’ll wind up as a positive impact. I thought that was a very unique philosophy.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated You Must Not Miss in Books
Jun 21, 2019
Magpie Lewis has been abandoned. Her father left. Then her sister, Eryn, too. Now it's just Magpie and her mom. Who truly isn't really present, as she drowns herself in booze and a haze of alcoholism. Magpie's sister left the same night as Brandon Phipps's party--after which Magpie's longtime friendship with Allison ended, and Magpie was branded a slut and left to be an outcast at school. So she starts writing in a yellow notebook, creating a world called Near. It's Magpie's magical place, where everything is perfect: no cheating father, no drunk mom, no missing sister, and no horrific school experiences. She thinks up Near so clearly, so fully, that she wills it into existence, and Magpie realizes that in Near, she can have it all: even revenge on those who have hurt her.
"There was one month left of her sophomore year of high school, and she had decided, after a mountain of evidence to support it, that the entire world was a joke."
I just love Katrina Leno, and her beautiful writing. You Must Not Miss is no exception: it's a poetic, stark take on high school friendship, rape culture, and the ties that bind us. The story is a clever variation of "One for Sorrow." Magpie is our main character and takes center stage: it's hard not to feel sympathetic for this poor abandoned girl--with no family who cares for her and, for a while, no friends.
"If you give a name to an impossible thing, does it make the impossible thing any less impossible?
But then the story takes a dramatic, dark twist--as Magpie creates Near both in her mind and in reality--and as Magpie's portal to another world takes true shape, we see our character find strength before our very eyes. I won't lie, I'm not sure this book is for everyone. It reminded me in some ways of a Maggie Stiefvater novel. It's true magical realism, and there's a suspension of disbelief to be had, to be sure. But it's a book that I feel like Leno was meant to be write. Her way of eviscerating rape culture, misogyny, and more is so adept, so searing. It is a call to arms to those who are not believed, who are ignored and mocked, who are the ones who see their lives ruined when the attackers run free.
In this way, You Must Not Miss is a strong, complex book tackling a tough topic. It may be difficult for some that this topic is underneath the magical world of Near, but I liked how that was what Magpie needed to deal with all that happened to her. Beware, this book is brutal at times (and yes, there's a trigger warning for rape/sexual assault). But it's beautifully written, too. It's complicated, much like its subject matter and its protagonist, who is still trying to figure herself out, as well. It's a different read, but if you're willing to give it a try, I think you'll be glad you did. 4 stars.
"There was one month left of her sophomore year of high school, and she had decided, after a mountain of evidence to support it, that the entire world was a joke."
I just love Katrina Leno, and her beautiful writing. You Must Not Miss is no exception: it's a poetic, stark take on high school friendship, rape culture, and the ties that bind us. The story is a clever variation of "One for Sorrow." Magpie is our main character and takes center stage: it's hard not to feel sympathetic for this poor abandoned girl--with no family who cares for her and, for a while, no friends.
"If you give a name to an impossible thing, does it make the impossible thing any less impossible?
But then the story takes a dramatic, dark twist--as Magpie creates Near both in her mind and in reality--and as Magpie's portal to another world takes true shape, we see our character find strength before our very eyes. I won't lie, I'm not sure this book is for everyone. It reminded me in some ways of a Maggie Stiefvater novel. It's true magical realism, and there's a suspension of disbelief to be had, to be sure. But it's a book that I feel like Leno was meant to be write. Her way of eviscerating rape culture, misogyny, and more is so adept, so searing. It is a call to arms to those who are not believed, who are ignored and mocked, who are the ones who see their lives ruined when the attackers run free.
In this way, You Must Not Miss is a strong, complex book tackling a tough topic. It may be difficult for some that this topic is underneath the magical world of Near, but I liked how that was what Magpie needed to deal with all that happened to her. Beware, this book is brutal at times (and yes, there's a trigger warning for rape/sexual assault). But it's beautifully written, too. It's complicated, much like its subject matter and its protagonist, who is still trying to figure herself out, as well. It's a different read, but if you're willing to give it a try, I think you'll be glad you did. 4 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Kim Possible (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
My name is Emma, and I still love Kim Possible. It's great fun and I will fight anyone who says it isn't. That is if we're talking about the animated series... that is gold, the live action film is not even tin foil.
I love Disney TV movies but I really wish they'd stick to originals or property that was already live action... stop remaking things that really don't need it.
Let's address the casting first.
Sean Giambrone as Ron was a solid bit of casting, the right amount of awkward and bumbling, the only thing is that for anyone who watches The Goldbergs he might just be a little too recognisable, but then I doubt many people will watch both of these things. Michael P. Northey as Mr Barkin, he was good, I was generally impressed... but in a world where we have Patrick Warburton why would we not cast Patrick Warburton? Patton Oswalt does evil genius voice fantastically and as Professor Demeantor he was a great pick. Getting a narrow pass, and it's the very finest of passess, Todd Stashwick. I enjoy him when he pops up in shows but he's no Drakken. He was also done wrong by the make-up department.
Everyone else? That's a no. Possibly the worst casting was on the Possible family themselves. I adore Alyson Hannigan but her Mrs. Dr. P. was no bueno. Same goes for Mr. Dr. P. After seeing them on screen I kind of assumed the story was going to revolve around them having been kidnapped and replaced by Bebes with extra nice programming. Jim and Tim were devoid of any of the character their cartoon counterparts had. And then there's Kim, I'm not sure there would have been anyone I'd have been happy with in this role but they've managed to create something very odd in this casting. Live action Kim acts physically like the cartoon does and yet somehow the personality didn't make the crossover with it.
The idea to take Kim down from the inside is one we've seen before with Eric the synthodrone who was used to further the Little Diablo world domination plan. It's a good narative and the twist we're given here isn't a bad one but the execution feels off.
The film turns the Kim Possible formula into a women kicking ass story but they do it really badly. Mrs. Dr. P. and Nana P. are brought on board and then just used as padding and left to be inept in a corner, it's a poor use of characters and a poor use of source material.
Of course the most important part is did they do Rufus right On the whole he wasn't bad and he certainly got his normal opportunity to come to the rescue so I'm going to say good job on that.
What you should do
Don't call her, don't beep her, if you want to watch Kim Possible then watch the series, this film needs to be forgotten in the depths of Disney+.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to fly through the air like I'm a cartoon character.
I love Disney TV movies but I really wish they'd stick to originals or property that was already live action... stop remaking things that really don't need it.
Let's address the casting first.
Sean Giambrone as Ron was a solid bit of casting, the right amount of awkward and bumbling, the only thing is that for anyone who watches The Goldbergs he might just be a little too recognisable, but then I doubt many people will watch both of these things. Michael P. Northey as Mr Barkin, he was good, I was generally impressed... but in a world where we have Patrick Warburton why would we not cast Patrick Warburton? Patton Oswalt does evil genius voice fantastically and as Professor Demeantor he was a great pick. Getting a narrow pass, and it's the very finest of passess, Todd Stashwick. I enjoy him when he pops up in shows but he's no Drakken. He was also done wrong by the make-up department.
Everyone else? That's a no. Possibly the worst casting was on the Possible family themselves. I adore Alyson Hannigan but her Mrs. Dr. P. was no bueno. Same goes for Mr. Dr. P. After seeing them on screen I kind of assumed the story was going to revolve around them having been kidnapped and replaced by Bebes with extra nice programming. Jim and Tim were devoid of any of the character their cartoon counterparts had. And then there's Kim, I'm not sure there would have been anyone I'd have been happy with in this role but they've managed to create something very odd in this casting. Live action Kim acts physically like the cartoon does and yet somehow the personality didn't make the crossover with it.
The idea to take Kim down from the inside is one we've seen before with Eric the synthodrone who was used to further the Little Diablo world domination plan. It's a good narative and the twist we're given here isn't a bad one but the execution feels off.
The film turns the Kim Possible formula into a women kicking ass story but they do it really badly. Mrs. Dr. P. and Nana P. are brought on board and then just used as padding and left to be inept in a corner, it's a poor use of characters and a poor use of source material.
Of course the most important part is did they do Rufus right On the whole he wasn't bad and he certainly got his normal opportunity to come to the rescue so I'm going to say good job on that.
What you should do
Don't call her, don't beep her, if you want to watch Kim Possible then watch the series, this film needs to be forgotten in the depths of Disney+.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to fly through the air like I'm a cartoon character.
Britt Daniel recommended Face to Face by The Kinks in Music (curated)
Alan Tudyk recommended Grown Man by Loudon Wainwright, III in Music (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 26, 2021
Until going back to the cinema this year I'd not watched a trailer or read any reviews of Cruella. When I finally saw it on the big screen, I was excited... but also terrified of the Disney live action antics.
Estella is a young aspiring designer with a wild side and an even wilder hairstyle. Making friends with a ragtag duo in London, she sets up in the shadows of a high profile department store that sets her down a path with a dark future.
Of all the live action films recently this has definitely given me some hope (which I'm sure I'll regret saying at some point). It starts the set-up of what we know Cruella to be. Origin story, villain, you know I'm in. And I loved the way that she wasn't inherently evil, it was the circumstances around her that created it by twisting her wild side.
My two favourite Emmas in one movie, it's a dream. Let's start with the lead, Emma Stone. It must have been amazing fun doing this role, at least it looked like that was the case and she could really let loose. You see Estella's spark of creativity, the embers of the young Cruella inside her even as an adult, and the blazing fire as the evil starts to peek through. I loved how they managed to get some nods in to the animated movie, and how she managed to capture them perfectly. If you asked me to cast someone in this role, I'm not sure I could have come up with someone better.
Emma Thompson was a surprise to me, it wasn't until the trailer that I realised she was in this. The instant I saw her I knew that I was going to love her. The Baroness is a force to be reckoned with and you can see the influence that she has. Ruthless and driven, every scene felt right.
Henchmen next, and of course I'm using "henchmen" in its loosest terms for Jasper and Horace. Another perfect vision of what's to come. Joel Fry as Jasper makes for an interesting take on the story, and while I can see why it's there, and I generally enjoy Fry's acting, I did not love Jasper quite as much as everyone around him. Particularly as he was paired with Paul Walter Hauser. Hauser is a great actor, if a little typecast in the slightly bumbling characters. His take on Horace is my favourite thing about this whole film. As a double act with Wink it was glorious and understated humour. I'd happily sit through a film entirely of them just being them.
I can't really talk Cruella without talking costume design. If this doesn't win all the awards then quite frankly it's complete insanity. Everything design-wise in this was amazing as far as I'm concerned. Cruella's hair changes and dresses blew me away. Eccentric, flamboyant, and just the right amount of crazy.
I'm not sure how I feel about the possibility of a sequel, but I really enjoyed this one. Everything from the film itself, to the posters, it ticked all the boxes.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/06/cruella-movie-review.html
Estella is a young aspiring designer with a wild side and an even wilder hairstyle. Making friends with a ragtag duo in London, she sets up in the shadows of a high profile department store that sets her down a path with a dark future.
Of all the live action films recently this has definitely given me some hope (which I'm sure I'll regret saying at some point). It starts the set-up of what we know Cruella to be. Origin story, villain, you know I'm in. And I loved the way that she wasn't inherently evil, it was the circumstances around her that created it by twisting her wild side.
My two favourite Emmas in one movie, it's a dream. Let's start with the lead, Emma Stone. It must have been amazing fun doing this role, at least it looked like that was the case and she could really let loose. You see Estella's spark of creativity, the embers of the young Cruella inside her even as an adult, and the blazing fire as the evil starts to peek through. I loved how they managed to get some nods in to the animated movie, and how she managed to capture them perfectly. If you asked me to cast someone in this role, I'm not sure I could have come up with someone better.
Emma Thompson was a surprise to me, it wasn't until the trailer that I realised she was in this. The instant I saw her I knew that I was going to love her. The Baroness is a force to be reckoned with and you can see the influence that she has. Ruthless and driven, every scene felt right.
Henchmen next, and of course I'm using "henchmen" in its loosest terms for Jasper and Horace. Another perfect vision of what's to come. Joel Fry as Jasper makes for an interesting take on the story, and while I can see why it's there, and I generally enjoy Fry's acting, I did not love Jasper quite as much as everyone around him. Particularly as he was paired with Paul Walter Hauser. Hauser is a great actor, if a little typecast in the slightly bumbling characters. His take on Horace is my favourite thing about this whole film. As a double act with Wink it was glorious and understated humour. I'd happily sit through a film entirely of them just being them.
I can't really talk Cruella without talking costume design. If this doesn't win all the awards then quite frankly it's complete insanity. Everything design-wise in this was amazing as far as I'm concerned. Cruella's hair changes and dresses blew me away. Eccentric, flamboyant, and just the right amount of crazy.
I'm not sure how I feel about the possibility of a sequel, but I really enjoyed this one. Everything from the film itself, to the posters, it ticked all the boxes.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/06/cruella-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Murder on the Orient Express is a mystery drama directed by, and starring, Kenneth Branagh and is based on the 1934 Agatha Christie novel of the same name. The film brings in a spectacular cast alongside Branagh, including Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad, Michelle Pfeiffer and Daisy Ridley. Also part of the main cast, while not well known, but equally as talented, are Tom Bateman, Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom Jr. and Lucy Boynton.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Moulin Rouge! (2001) in Movies
Apr 15, 2020
In My "ALL TIME TOP 10"
If one would look at the BankofMarquis "All Time Top 10" film list, you will see such stalwarts as THE GODFATHER, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and CITIZEN KANE. It also would contain a "more modern" film that doesn't, necessarily, find itself on these types of lists - Baz Luhrman's MOULIN ROUGE from 2001.
Yes...it's that good.
Set at the turn of the century (the 19th to the 20th century) during the Bohemian Revolution in Paris, MOULIN ROUGE tells the tale of the...you guessed it...the Moulin Rouge theater/club where a young writer (Ewan McGregor) gets pulled into the lives of the artists and others trying to make a living, falling in love with a young courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman) all under the watchful eye of Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent).
But it is not the story, but the telling of the story that sets this film apart. It is chaotic, wild, colorful, sexy, grimy, loving, alcoholic and spectacular - all things that not only describe this film, but the Moulin Rouge itself. Directer Baz Luhrman really shines in his vision of this picture that juxtaposes colorful sets and costumes, unique characters and songs and dance and music that tells the tale in a a unique way.
Oh...did I mention that most of this music is MODERN music? From Elton John's YOUR SONG to Roger's and Hammerstein's THE SOUND OF MUSIC to LADY MARMALADE to the ingenious use of Sting's ROXANNE (in a tango scene no less), this film is an amalgam of song that fits each scene perfectly. At what first seems incongruous, upon further viewings, the songs are slyly picked to accent the emotions and dramatic purpose of each scene.
As for the acting, McGregor and Kidman are beautifully cast (pun intended) as the young lovers. Their good looks radiate across the screen and I thought they had great chemistry. John Leguzamo and the other "Bohemians" pop in and out and are uniquely outrageous without being annoying. Richard Roxburgh's antagonist, "the Duke", came across in this viewing as not nearly as annoying as I have found him to be previously. Maybe there is more to this character/performance than meets the eye.
But it is Jim Broadbent's portrayal of the Master Shoman, Harold Zidler, that steals this film for me. He is a cunning and ingenious showman who (more than once) proves that he will stop at nothing for the "show to go on", but there are many notes to Zidler, at once in control and at the same time trying to KEEP control of events spiraling out of his control that actually shows a desperate man doing whatever he can to survive.
Add all these ingredients up and you have a film that gets deeper and richer with each subsequent viewing. I have yet to get tired of this film - and I am looking forward to the next time I immerse myself into this world.
Letter Grade: A +
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes...it's that good.
Set at the turn of the century (the 19th to the 20th century) during the Bohemian Revolution in Paris, MOULIN ROUGE tells the tale of the...you guessed it...the Moulin Rouge theater/club where a young writer (Ewan McGregor) gets pulled into the lives of the artists and others trying to make a living, falling in love with a young courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman) all under the watchful eye of Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent).
But it is not the story, but the telling of the story that sets this film apart. It is chaotic, wild, colorful, sexy, grimy, loving, alcoholic and spectacular - all things that not only describe this film, but the Moulin Rouge itself. Directer Baz Luhrman really shines in his vision of this picture that juxtaposes colorful sets and costumes, unique characters and songs and dance and music that tells the tale in a a unique way.
Oh...did I mention that most of this music is MODERN music? From Elton John's YOUR SONG to Roger's and Hammerstein's THE SOUND OF MUSIC to LADY MARMALADE to the ingenious use of Sting's ROXANNE (in a tango scene no less), this film is an amalgam of song that fits each scene perfectly. At what first seems incongruous, upon further viewings, the songs are slyly picked to accent the emotions and dramatic purpose of each scene.
As for the acting, McGregor and Kidman are beautifully cast (pun intended) as the young lovers. Their good looks radiate across the screen and I thought they had great chemistry. John Leguzamo and the other "Bohemians" pop in and out and are uniquely outrageous without being annoying. Richard Roxburgh's antagonist, "the Duke", came across in this viewing as not nearly as annoying as I have found him to be previously. Maybe there is more to this character/performance than meets the eye.
But it is Jim Broadbent's portrayal of the Master Shoman, Harold Zidler, that steals this film for me. He is a cunning and ingenious showman who (more than once) proves that he will stop at nothing for the "show to go on", but there are many notes to Zidler, at once in control and at the same time trying to KEEP control of events spiraling out of his control that actually shows a desperate man doing whatever he can to survive.
Add all these ingredients up and you have a film that gets deeper and richer with each subsequent viewing. I have yet to get tired of this film - and I am looking forward to the next time I immerse myself into this world.
Letter Grade: A +
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Jun 10, 2022
Time For This To Go Extinct
Like it was millions of years ago, the time of the dinosaurs is coming to a close. With JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION, we end the Jurassic World trilogy (after having the Jurassic Park trilogy) and it is high time we do so.
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)