Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Eternity Cure (Blood of Eden, #2) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted on <a title="The Eternity Cure by Julie Kagawa" href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/08/review-the-eternity-cure-by-julie-kagawa.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>.
<i><b>Note:</b> Formatting is lost due to copy and paste</i>
I should warn you. It's a really long post. So feel to scroll on down to the After Reading part if you want to. :3
<b><u>Before Reading:</b></u>
Wowzers. The Eternity Cure must be popular at my library (YAY!). Apparently I went crashing into dead ends (I even lost count of them) since who knows when (April, May) with so many holds (that includes ebook lend on Overdrive and whatnot but those holds weren't me) and FINALLY I have my hands on The Eternity Cure.
Imagine my reaction after that. Happy dancing. Of course. VICTORY! (Yeah... I'm glad I placed a hold before the last copy got taken...)
And then mom drops the bomb. Yes, a bomb. A verbal bomb. The one shatters your dreams (okay, not exactly dreams) into a million pieces and you can't put them back together, like Humpty Dumpty (poor Humpty...), who unfortunately has fallen off the wall.
“Returning book on Saturday.” (or something of the similar sort).
Time for another reaction.
*gawk* Jaw drop. Faceplant on the wall (no one saw it; it was virtual because I don't want a big purple bruise and questions...). Victory dance stops and then someone gets stared at as if they had grown three heads (no, I didn't actually do it, because then everyone at the library will be the ones staring at me as if I had grown three heads).
Expected to read an almost 500-page book in a few days? (It's not even a week.)
It's Julie Kagawa! Challenge Accepted, mother.
Gives mom a thumbs up.
Nods with a very confident (and possibly self-satisfied that says I can do this!) grin at her.
Turns off computer.
Becomes hermit crab for the rest of the week or however long I finish this book. Because I'm not planning to read halfway through and then return it (it's not my style. Once I start, I must finish or there's something that stops me. And by then... there's gotta be something that makes me want to chuck the book across the room – of course... I might have to pay $30 dollars. Not exactly worth it. But I can imagine it being chucked.)
I'm pretty sure I'll fail at staying off though. Because even if the computer doesn't have internet connection...
it's the epitome of procrastination (you know, files to organize, chess to play – yes, girls play chess, making extremely lame movies from MS Paint stick figures, that type of stuff).
At least for me. I should ask someone to lock it up for me. Or ask them to toss me in a place that's so boring, I have nothing to do but to read. Oh, and be sure to remove any magazines, or put some dreadfully boring ones on that coffee table in the corner.
But still. It's Wednesday. I'm closed. Come back another day and see if the sign changes.
Because it won't change. Not until I savor every moment I have left with Allie, Zeke, and any other [lovable] characters that may return (and possible new ones as well).
(Holy monkeys, that probably sounded like a monologue. Sorry if you're bored, or if you think I'm insane by now and don't want to read my thoughts after I come out of hermit-nation in a few days.... because I know I talk too much when I write. Oopsies.)
<b><u>After Reading: - A Few Days Later...</b></u>
Well. I'm out of my little hermit shell now. “Justin Time.” So...
It's been a few months since Allie the vampire left Eden, and there's a new not-so-very-pleasant surprise popping up around the corners. She's more mature now, and when a certain character by the name of Zeke comes around from the previous book, he's also more mature.
Remember Jackal from The Immortal Rules? He's not that bad after all, though he reminds me of a certain arrogant vampire from...
The Vampire Diaries.
Actually, that certain vampire popped up in my head every time Jackal spoke, despite the fact both vampires look different.
In fact, Mr. Raider King is actually a pretty likable character. But Jackal actually has humor. Considering the fact he seemed like the person to take over the world... I didn't exactly find that he would make wisecracks here, there and everywhere.
I think you've figured out which vampire I'm talking about now. *neutrally cheerful voice* Go Daemon.
But about the ending...
O___O
You're kidding me.
O___O
That didn't just happen (or should I say, I did not just read that). I couldn't have read that wrong, could I?
*rereads*
Nope. Definitely didn't read it wrong.
And now you're making me wait for another year or so to find out what happens. >__<
But I'll wait... because I have plenty of other books to keep me company... and the only way to come up with a good story is to patiently wait... and wait... and wait. In which I'll happily do while stalking the county library catalog as soon as it's published.
Oh... and the after part is shorter because well... you're already stuck reading 500+ words from the Before Reading. I figured you don't need to read another 500+ for the After Reading. I mean, you might be bored of me talking too much by now...
I hope no one minds? :3?
<i><b>Note:</b> Formatting is lost due to copy and paste</i>
I should warn you. It's a really long post. So feel to scroll on down to the After Reading part if you want to. :3
<b><u>Before Reading:</b></u>
Wowzers. The Eternity Cure must be popular at my library (YAY!). Apparently I went crashing into dead ends (I even lost count of them) since who knows when (April, May) with so many holds (that includes ebook lend on Overdrive and whatnot but those holds weren't me) and FINALLY I have my hands on The Eternity Cure.
Imagine my reaction after that. Happy dancing. Of course. VICTORY! (Yeah... I'm glad I placed a hold before the last copy got taken...)
And then mom drops the bomb. Yes, a bomb. A verbal bomb. The one shatters your dreams (okay, not exactly dreams) into a million pieces and you can't put them back together, like Humpty Dumpty (poor Humpty...), who unfortunately has fallen off the wall.
“Returning book on Saturday.” (or something of the similar sort).
Time for another reaction.
*gawk* Jaw drop. Faceplant on the wall (no one saw it; it was virtual because I don't want a big purple bruise and questions...). Victory dance stops and then someone gets stared at as if they had grown three heads (no, I didn't actually do it, because then everyone at the library will be the ones staring at me as if I had grown three heads).
Expected to read an almost 500-page book in a few days? (It's not even a week.)
It's Julie Kagawa! Challenge Accepted, mother.
Gives mom a thumbs up.
Nods with a very confident (and possibly self-satisfied that says I can do this!) grin at her.
Turns off computer.
Becomes hermit crab for the rest of the week or however long I finish this book. Because I'm not planning to read halfway through and then return it (it's not my style. Once I start, I must finish or there's something that stops me. And by then... there's gotta be something that makes me want to chuck the book across the room – of course... I might have to pay $30 dollars. Not exactly worth it. But I can imagine it being chucked.)
I'm pretty sure I'll fail at staying off though. Because even if the computer doesn't have internet connection...
it's the epitome of procrastination (you know, files to organize, chess to play – yes, girls play chess, making extremely lame movies from MS Paint stick figures, that type of stuff).
At least for me. I should ask someone to lock it up for me. Or ask them to toss me in a place that's so boring, I have nothing to do but to read. Oh, and be sure to remove any magazines, or put some dreadfully boring ones on that coffee table in the corner.
But still. It's Wednesday. I'm closed. Come back another day and see if the sign changes.
Because it won't change. Not until I savor every moment I have left with Allie, Zeke, and any other [lovable] characters that may return (and possible new ones as well).
(Holy monkeys, that probably sounded like a monologue. Sorry if you're bored, or if you think I'm insane by now and don't want to read my thoughts after I come out of hermit-nation in a few days.... because I know I talk too much when I write. Oopsies.)
<b><u>After Reading: - A Few Days Later...</b></u>
Well. I'm out of my little hermit shell now. “Justin Time.” So...
It's been a few months since Allie the vampire left Eden, and there's a new not-so-very-pleasant surprise popping up around the corners. She's more mature now, and when a certain character by the name of Zeke comes around from the previous book, he's also more mature.
Remember Jackal from The Immortal Rules? He's not that bad after all, though he reminds me of a certain arrogant vampire from...
The Vampire Diaries.
Actually, that certain vampire popped up in my head every time Jackal spoke, despite the fact both vampires look different.
In fact, Mr. Raider King is actually a pretty likable character. But Jackal actually has humor. Considering the fact he seemed like the person to take over the world... I didn't exactly find that he would make wisecracks here, there and everywhere.
I think you've figured out which vampire I'm talking about now. *neutrally cheerful voice* Go Daemon.
But about the ending...
O___O
You're kidding me.
O___O
That didn't just happen (or should I say, I did not just read that). I couldn't have read that wrong, could I?
*rereads*
Nope. Definitely didn't read it wrong.
And now you're making me wait for another year or so to find out what happens. >__<
But I'll wait... because I have plenty of other books to keep me company... and the only way to come up with a good story is to patiently wait... and wait... and wait. In which I'll happily do while stalking the county library catalog as soon as it's published.
Oh... and the after part is shorter because well... you're already stuck reading 500+ words from the Before Reading. I figured you don't need to read another 500+ for the After Reading. I mean, you might be bored of me talking too much by now...
I hope no one minds? :3?
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Fire in the Library in Tabletop Games
Feb 11, 2020
My main job currently is working in an academic library. I have lots of different responsibilities to handle. So when I heard about a game with a title, “Fire in the Library,” I knew we HAD to play it. What employee wouldn’t want to play a game where the game ends once your workplace inevitably burns down? Imagine my giddiness as I learned this game and set it up for the first time.
Fire in the Library is a push-your-luck card game that rewards players for pushing their luck well beyond their comfort zones… but as with all push-your-luck games, defeat is also imminent.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, each player will choose a player color, place their Libreeple (I think it’s Libreeple anyway) near the scoring track, and take the corresponding Player Reference Card. The Library will next be built from sequential Library Cards. The Library is a group of individual decks of cards arranged in a 2×2 pattern, and the card fronts create a lovely picture of the Library. Add all cubes of five different colors to the Library Bag (keeping aside 10 red “fire” cubes). Shuffle the Tool Cards deck, deal each player two Tool Cards, place the top three Tool Cards face-up next to its deck to form the Tool Card Market. Shuffle the Turn Order Cards per the player count rules in the rulebook, deal one to each player, and the game can begin!
Phase One of the game is Choosing Turn Order. Once the turn order has been established (just for the first round – after that, the player who is in last place will choose which Turn Order Card they would like to use for the round) the 1st Player will move onto Phase Two. Yes, Choosing Turn Order is an entire phase by itself. This becomes more important once I explain Tool Cards a little later.
Phase Two is the meat of the game. It is split into two sections, but they flow so nicely into each other. The active player consults their Turn Order Card to understand how many book cubes they would like to pull from the bag, thus “saving” them from the impending fire. The Turn Order Cards will have blank square spaces for “safe” areas, and spaces with fire icons in “risky” spaces. More points can be scored by placing cubes into the risky spaces, but also is more dangerous. You see, a player can pull out a red fire cube from the bag and still choose to continue to pull cubes, assuming the red cube is placed on a safe space on their card. But pull a second fire cube and their turn is immediately over. However, pulling just one red cube and having to place it in a risky space ends the turn immediately. A player can choose to stop pulling cubes at any time and earn the rewards on the Turn Order Card printed directly below the last cube placed as well as the points for each book saved, which are the large numbers printed on the Library Cards (the 2×2 grid with the picture of the Library). These rewards from the Turn Order Card could be merely a Tool Card (under safe spaces), or it could result in points on the scoreboard (under risky spaces). Even if a player busts with the red cubes, they will be able to take a Tool Card as consolation. If the active player did not bust and voluntarily stopped pulling cubes, they add their points for the turn and adjust their Libreeple accordingly. On the other hand, if a player had to end their turn due to pulling red fire cubes, then the fire spreads!
When the Fire Spreads all the books that the active player had thought they saved are burned (returned to the bag). These lost books will also cause the fire to burn down portions of the Library that match the colors of the cubes pulled. Remove the top cards for each of these cubes from the Library. Sometimes this will reveal a printed fire icon on the revealed Library cards. Every time a fire icon is revealed in this way, one of the red cubes that was set aside at setup will be added to the Library Bag – thus increasing the ratio of fire to safe books in the bag.
Phase Three is called “After Scoring.” Every Tool Card in the deck will have an icon printed to show when it can be played during a turn (check the Reference Card). The Tool Cards can be played during Choosing Turn Order, Saving Books, Fire Spreading, and After Scoring.
Once all players have had their turn for the round, a portion of the Library will burn. Remove the appropriate card (according to the rulebook). All players will have a chance to discard one of their Tool Cards and replace it with a Tool Card from the top of the deck. When complete, a new round begins. Play continues in this fashion until a section of the Library is revealed with an icon signifying the end of the game. Players will have one last round to earn as many points as— I mean, save as many books as they can.
Components. There’s a lot going on in this game, and the components are really really good. First, the game box is one of those awesome magnetic boxes (like Biblios) that unfolds and reveals the score tracker. The Libreeples are normal meeple fare, the cubes are normal cube fare, and the Library Bag is one that is loved by Guy Fieri (probably). The cards are great quality and feature really amazing artwork by Katie Khau and Beth Sobel. Overall, the components are wonderful and we really enjoyed playing with them.
As you can tell from our score, we genuinely enjoyed this game. The push-your-luck mechanic is so central to the game and the Tool Cards help to mitigate frustrating pulls, or help to manipulate other areas of the game, and we love both of those aspects. All in all, Fire in the Library is a truly enjoyable experience, and one that I find myself thinking about outside of game night. I cannot wait to play again, and hopefully save more books. I would suggest adding this to my workplace library’s board game collection, but I don’t want any students getting any great ideas… Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a hot hot hot 15 / 18. Check it out for a different take on push-your-luck, where you actually care about what you’re doing. Oh, and of course I won – I work in a college library.
Fire in the Library is a push-your-luck card game that rewards players for pushing their luck well beyond their comfort zones… but as with all push-your-luck games, defeat is also imminent.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, each player will choose a player color, place their Libreeple (I think it’s Libreeple anyway) near the scoring track, and take the corresponding Player Reference Card. The Library will next be built from sequential Library Cards. The Library is a group of individual decks of cards arranged in a 2×2 pattern, and the card fronts create a lovely picture of the Library. Add all cubes of five different colors to the Library Bag (keeping aside 10 red “fire” cubes). Shuffle the Tool Cards deck, deal each player two Tool Cards, place the top three Tool Cards face-up next to its deck to form the Tool Card Market. Shuffle the Turn Order Cards per the player count rules in the rulebook, deal one to each player, and the game can begin!
Phase One of the game is Choosing Turn Order. Once the turn order has been established (just for the first round – after that, the player who is in last place will choose which Turn Order Card they would like to use for the round) the 1st Player will move onto Phase Two. Yes, Choosing Turn Order is an entire phase by itself. This becomes more important once I explain Tool Cards a little later.
Phase Two is the meat of the game. It is split into two sections, but they flow so nicely into each other. The active player consults their Turn Order Card to understand how many book cubes they would like to pull from the bag, thus “saving” them from the impending fire. The Turn Order Cards will have blank square spaces for “safe” areas, and spaces with fire icons in “risky” spaces. More points can be scored by placing cubes into the risky spaces, but also is more dangerous. You see, a player can pull out a red fire cube from the bag and still choose to continue to pull cubes, assuming the red cube is placed on a safe space on their card. But pull a second fire cube and their turn is immediately over. However, pulling just one red cube and having to place it in a risky space ends the turn immediately. A player can choose to stop pulling cubes at any time and earn the rewards on the Turn Order Card printed directly below the last cube placed as well as the points for each book saved, which are the large numbers printed on the Library Cards (the 2×2 grid with the picture of the Library). These rewards from the Turn Order Card could be merely a Tool Card (under safe spaces), or it could result in points on the scoreboard (under risky spaces). Even if a player busts with the red cubes, they will be able to take a Tool Card as consolation. If the active player did not bust and voluntarily stopped pulling cubes, they add their points for the turn and adjust their Libreeple accordingly. On the other hand, if a player had to end their turn due to pulling red fire cubes, then the fire spreads!
When the Fire Spreads all the books that the active player had thought they saved are burned (returned to the bag). These lost books will also cause the fire to burn down portions of the Library that match the colors of the cubes pulled. Remove the top cards for each of these cubes from the Library. Sometimes this will reveal a printed fire icon on the revealed Library cards. Every time a fire icon is revealed in this way, one of the red cubes that was set aside at setup will be added to the Library Bag – thus increasing the ratio of fire to safe books in the bag.
Phase Three is called “After Scoring.” Every Tool Card in the deck will have an icon printed to show when it can be played during a turn (check the Reference Card). The Tool Cards can be played during Choosing Turn Order, Saving Books, Fire Spreading, and After Scoring.
Once all players have had their turn for the round, a portion of the Library will burn. Remove the appropriate card (according to the rulebook). All players will have a chance to discard one of their Tool Cards and replace it with a Tool Card from the top of the deck. When complete, a new round begins. Play continues in this fashion until a section of the Library is revealed with an icon signifying the end of the game. Players will have one last round to earn as many points as— I mean, save as many books as they can.
Components. There’s a lot going on in this game, and the components are really really good. First, the game box is one of those awesome magnetic boxes (like Biblios) that unfolds and reveals the score tracker. The Libreeples are normal meeple fare, the cubes are normal cube fare, and the Library Bag is one that is loved by Guy Fieri (probably). The cards are great quality and feature really amazing artwork by Katie Khau and Beth Sobel. Overall, the components are wonderful and we really enjoyed playing with them.
As you can tell from our score, we genuinely enjoyed this game. The push-your-luck mechanic is so central to the game and the Tool Cards help to mitigate frustrating pulls, or help to manipulate other areas of the game, and we love both of those aspects. All in all, Fire in the Library is a truly enjoyable experience, and one that I find myself thinking about outside of game night. I cannot wait to play again, and hopefully save more books. I would suggest adding this to my workplace library’s board game collection, but I don’t want any students getting any great ideas… Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a hot hot hot 15 / 18. Check it out for a different take on push-your-luck, where you actually care about what you’re doing. Oh, and of course I won – I work in a college library.
I tried to avoid much about this before seeing it and despite the internet being what it is I somehow managed to avoid spoilers.
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb in Books
Apr 13, 2019
"The crime itself was indefensible. The brilliant, spoiled and bored sons of two of Chicago's wealthiest families planned to commit the perfect crime both for the thrill of and to prove their perverse misunderstanding of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of the 'superman,' who was above all law so long as he made no mistake. Their plan, worked out over several months, was to kidnap and immediately kill one of their younger neighbors and hide his body. They would then demand and collect a ransom. The body would never be discovered, the crime would never be solved and only they would know that they had prevailed over ordinary human beings and their simple-minded legal system. But far from being the 'perfect crime,' the murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks turned out to be amateurishly botched. Before any ransom could be paid, the boy's body was discovered in a culvert near where Nathan Leopold often went bird-watching. A pair of telltale glasses were found adjacent to the body. They were easily traced to Leopold who first came up with a paper-thin alibi and soon thereafter confessed to the crime. His fellow murderer likewise confessed. Each of the 'superboys' placed blame for the actual killing on the other." - Alan M. Dershowitz
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sing Me to Sleep in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Beth is a ridiculously tall, horribly ugly girl suffering though high school. Her nickname is “the Beast.” She is bullied by everyone. Her face is scared and pimply and messed up, she was born that way and nothing works to get rid of it. The only people in the world that she has are her mother—who loves her fiercely—and her best friend since pre-school, Scott.
But then through the course of several unexpected events, Beth ends up with the solo in her choir. She goes from ugly and in the back rows to re-made, re-styled, and re-“faced” after laser surgery. Her choir gets a chance to go to a competition in Switzerland.
And she meets Derek. Derek is on one of the other teams, the biggest, best, most famous choir. He’s the hottest guy she’s ever met. And he’s in love with her.
But there’s something wrong with Derek. He won’t tell her what it is, and she’s scared to ask because every time she brings it up, he runs away.
And the fact that Scott has admitted that he’s in love with her—and she’s pretty sure she loves him too—isn’t making anything less complicated…
Review:
I enjoyed Sing Me To Sleep. Please realize and remember that. It kept me reading, it moved quickly. But there were a few things that drove me crazy while I read this and took away from the overall enjoyment.
The first was the writing. There’s a difference between a writing style, and writing crappy. 75% of the “sentences” in this book were fragments. No, I did not count the sentences and take a literal percentage, but that’s what it felt like. There were a lot of two or three word phrases stacked next to each other. That does not count as a writing style, it’s poor grammar. It was so distracting that I found myself annoyed and wanting to put it down.
The second was the romance. In the beginning, the romance between Derek and Beth was just too rushed. There were no meaningful conversations, there wasn’t much plot, there wasn’t much talking. There was a lot of “I love you’s” and a lot of tension and a lot of kissing (hot kissing, but just kissing none the less). Beth was convinced she was in love with him—and he with her—but their relationship was so shallow, that I expected him to dump her any minute (or vice versa). It didn’t feel real.
Near the end, it became a little more real after Derek’s secret came out and Beth began to feel a little different about him. For the sake of keeping this review spoiler-free, I won’t say much more than that. However because their “love” was built on such shaky ground in the first place, most of the end didn’t feel very real either. Beth didn’t know what love really meant until the very end of the book. Poor girl.
The third… sadly, the characters. I didn’t feel much of a connection to them. Believe it or not, the one character I related to most was Scott. He wasn’t even in most of the book—most of it was Beth and Derek—but Scott was the most realistic character (and I’m totally in love with him) and the character that I could understand the best. But Beth and Derek both… I just didn’t connect.
I feel really bad that I’ve complained so much. I also feel really sad that I didn’t love this one. But as a reviewer I promise to be honest, and this is how I feel. Again, as I said at the top, I enjoyed the book, it kept me reading though it wasn’t a sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of page-turner. But it was a bit of a let-down after all the 5-star or A+ reviews I’ve read for it. Don’t listen to just one opinion. Check out some other reviews for this one before you decide to believe me.
But then through the course of several unexpected events, Beth ends up with the solo in her choir. She goes from ugly and in the back rows to re-made, re-styled, and re-“faced” after laser surgery. Her choir gets a chance to go to a competition in Switzerland.
And she meets Derek. Derek is on one of the other teams, the biggest, best, most famous choir. He’s the hottest guy she’s ever met. And he’s in love with her.
But there’s something wrong with Derek. He won’t tell her what it is, and she’s scared to ask because every time she brings it up, he runs away.
And the fact that Scott has admitted that he’s in love with her—and she’s pretty sure she loves him too—isn’t making anything less complicated…
Review:
I enjoyed Sing Me To Sleep. Please realize and remember that. It kept me reading, it moved quickly. But there were a few things that drove me crazy while I read this and took away from the overall enjoyment.
The first was the writing. There’s a difference between a writing style, and writing crappy. 75% of the “sentences” in this book were fragments. No, I did not count the sentences and take a literal percentage, but that’s what it felt like. There were a lot of two or three word phrases stacked next to each other. That does not count as a writing style, it’s poor grammar. It was so distracting that I found myself annoyed and wanting to put it down.
The second was the romance. In the beginning, the romance between Derek and Beth was just too rushed. There were no meaningful conversations, there wasn’t much plot, there wasn’t much talking. There was a lot of “I love you’s” and a lot of tension and a lot of kissing (hot kissing, but just kissing none the less). Beth was convinced she was in love with him—and he with her—but their relationship was so shallow, that I expected him to dump her any minute (or vice versa). It didn’t feel real.
Near the end, it became a little more real after Derek’s secret came out and Beth began to feel a little different about him. For the sake of keeping this review spoiler-free, I won’t say much more than that. However because their “love” was built on such shaky ground in the first place, most of the end didn’t feel very real either. Beth didn’t know what love really meant until the very end of the book. Poor girl.
The third… sadly, the characters. I didn’t feel much of a connection to them. Believe it or not, the one character I related to most was Scott. He wasn’t even in most of the book—most of it was Beth and Derek—but Scott was the most realistic character (and I’m totally in love with him) and the character that I could understand the best. But Beth and Derek both… I just didn’t connect.
I feel really bad that I’ve complained so much. I also feel really sad that I didn’t love this one. But as a reviewer I promise to be honest, and this is how I feel. Again, as I said at the top, I enjoyed the book, it kept me reading though it wasn’t a sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of page-turner. But it was a bit of a let-down after all the 5-star or A+ reviews I’ve read for it. Don’t listen to just one opinion. Check out some other reviews for this one before you decide to believe me.
Becs (244 KP) rated Blinding Night in Books
May 17, 2019
Rushed at parts and slow at others, but the story was there
My rating: ☆☆☆.5
I received the audiobook version of Blinding Night to read and review for my honest opinion.
I was very excited to read this as it was a retelling of my favorite Greek God and Goddess. I did enjoy it, but there were things that I was kind of so/so on. We'll get to that in a bit though.
Blinding Night follows Summer as she heads to Greece with her family for an expedition over summer vacation. Summer is not at all too happy about spending the entire summer months in a different country with her family while her friends were out having fun. But when Summer arrives in Greece, things take a twist of a turn.
She begins having visions and dreams of a shadowed figure and pomegranate seeds. Then the unthinkable happens, a tragic car accident. This is about the time when Summer meets Darce, a disguise of Hades. Darce then seduces Summer down into the Underworld because he believes she is the reincarnation of his long lost love Persephone. But they can't say anything because than Demeter who has been disguising herself as Summer's mother, will try to take her back. Which is not what we need, because that could lead to some very bad endings.
Characters:
Summer - the main character, a reincarnation of Persephone. Whines and complains a ton.
Darce - a disguise that Hades uses for when he's in the Human world. Supposed to be very dominant, brooding, and in charge, yet is not. Don't get me wrong, he was witty and seductive - which is honestly something I rather enjoy in the main man.
Morpheus - a very laid back character that I at first thought was more of a side character but he plays a very important role throughout the story.
Arae - sassy, snarky, the exact replica of a mean girl. Her snarky comments to the other gods had me cracking up!
Reasons why I rated it 3.5 stars:
1. The plot:
There were a lot of plot holes, at least that's what it felt like. Summer would do things that didn't make any sense and it just left me really confused over the entirety of the story. Some parts were rushed, while others were slow. It wasn't balanced as well as I'd hoped it was. When I imagined a modern retelling of Hades and Persephone, I figured it would have a bit of the dramatic, dark, and Gothic aura around the Underworld and Hades himself as is found in other retellings. Instead, I was left with sunshine and buttercups and just a small disappointed flare that raced through my body. Also, the part I enjoyed the most was the ending. That's when things actually started to get interesting. Chantal does not disappoint on cliffhangers, cause that was a surprise of a cliffhanger.
2. My enjoyment:
I really enjoyed the story as a whole and would reread again at a later date, but I just wish it was more fleshed out.
3. Character and story development:
There was hardly any character development and that made the story a bit dry. There was some story development but not as much that was needed. I found some parts to be rather boring because it lacked the spark of background that could have made this story so much better.
4. Grammar and spelling:
Since I listened to the audiobook version of the story, I can't say much for the grammar and spelling. I'm going to assume it's good and the way Chantal writes had me enthralled with the story.
5. The overall story:
The story wasn't at all what I imagined how the story was going to go. It was a good and very light story, but it lacked the intensity that comes when you read retellings of Greek gods and goddess'.
"Stories tend to get messed up all the time. It's like a classic game of telephone. Somewhere along the way, the truth is lost and the story becomes something entirely different."
I received the audiobook version of Blinding Night to read and review for my honest opinion.
I was very excited to read this as it was a retelling of my favorite Greek God and Goddess. I did enjoy it, but there were things that I was kind of so/so on. We'll get to that in a bit though.
Blinding Night follows Summer as she heads to Greece with her family for an expedition over summer vacation. Summer is not at all too happy about spending the entire summer months in a different country with her family while her friends were out having fun. But when Summer arrives in Greece, things take a twist of a turn.
She begins having visions and dreams of a shadowed figure and pomegranate seeds. Then the unthinkable happens, a tragic car accident. This is about the time when Summer meets Darce, a disguise of Hades. Darce then seduces Summer down into the Underworld because he believes she is the reincarnation of his long lost love Persephone. But they can't say anything because than Demeter who has been disguising herself as Summer's mother, will try to take her back. Which is not what we need, because that could lead to some very bad endings.
Characters:
Summer - the main character, a reincarnation of Persephone. Whines and complains a ton.
Darce - a disguise that Hades uses for when he's in the Human world. Supposed to be very dominant, brooding, and in charge, yet is not. Don't get me wrong, he was witty and seductive - which is honestly something I rather enjoy in the main man.
Morpheus - a very laid back character that I at first thought was more of a side character but he plays a very important role throughout the story.
Arae - sassy, snarky, the exact replica of a mean girl. Her snarky comments to the other gods had me cracking up!
Reasons why I rated it 3.5 stars:
1. The plot:
There were a lot of plot holes, at least that's what it felt like. Summer would do things that didn't make any sense and it just left me really confused over the entirety of the story. Some parts were rushed, while others were slow. It wasn't balanced as well as I'd hoped it was. When I imagined a modern retelling of Hades and Persephone, I figured it would have a bit of the dramatic, dark, and Gothic aura around the Underworld and Hades himself as is found in other retellings. Instead, I was left with sunshine and buttercups and just a small disappointed flare that raced through my body. Also, the part I enjoyed the most was the ending. That's when things actually started to get interesting. Chantal does not disappoint on cliffhangers, cause that was a surprise of a cliffhanger.
2. My enjoyment:
I really enjoyed the story as a whole and would reread again at a later date, but I just wish it was more fleshed out.
3. Character and story development:
There was hardly any character development and that made the story a bit dry. There was some story development but not as much that was needed. I found some parts to be rather boring because it lacked the spark of background that could have made this story so much better.
4. Grammar and spelling:
Since I listened to the audiobook version of the story, I can't say much for the grammar and spelling. I'm going to assume it's good and the way Chantal writes had me enthralled with the story.
5. The overall story:
The story wasn't at all what I imagined how the story was going to go. It was a good and very light story, but it lacked the intensity that comes when you read retellings of Greek gods and goddess'.
"Stories tend to get messed up all the time. It's like a classic game of telephone. Somewhere along the way, the truth is lost and the story becomes something entirely different."
Louise (64 KP) rated And I Darken (The Conqueror's Saga #1) in Books
Jul 2, 2018
First I would like to say a massive thank you to Goodreads as I won myself a copy on one of their giveaways( Aren’t they great!)
And I Darken is a new Historical fiction/Re-telling of Vlad the Impaler but gender swapped. Goodreads have it listed as being a fantasy, but there is no magic or any paranormal goings on whatsoever…glad we got that cleared up.
Our story follows Ladislav (Lada) and Radu Dragwyla the descendants of Vlad Dracul, Prince of Wallachia. Vlad is a vile human being and uses his own children for bargaining with the Ottoman Empire, there lives are at risk if he does not keep to the treaties terms. Living in the Ottoman Empire is risky for Lada and Radu, Lada could easily be married off to some suitor for allegiance or killed whichever is easier for the Sultan. Running the grounds they bump into a young boy the same age as them, only to find that he is the Sultan’s son Mehmed. Mehmed is a lonely boy with only his tutors for company so he befriends them both and shares all his education and time with them, which in turn takes them out of the spotlight.
Lada is a very strong character, she is a force to be reckoned with. She is brutal,fierce and just a total badass throughout the book. Being born a woman is one almighty struggle to be taken seriously in the 1400’s. She knows that she is the rightful heir of Wallachia at the young age of 11. She wants to impress her father with her fighting skills and there is a point when she thinks she has, but the only thoughts her father has is marrying her off to a suitor and being a dutiful wife. Lada is very family orientated and has a very unique relationship with her brother Radu but she will never show any emotion as this is a sign of weakness and she is perceived as a cold-hearted bitch.
Radu was always a disappointment to his father, weak,cowardly and clinging to his nursemaids side infuriated Vlad. Radu was the more emotional of siblings, even though he was not great at fighting he had a devious and cunning mind that made him equally as dangerous as Lada.
My feelings towards the characters changed a lot throughout the book at first I thought Lada was just a psychotic child but realised she is trying to prove herself as being fierce. Radu he was very sweet throughout the book and always wanted his sister to just open up and tell him she loved him and for him to tell her his secrets and feelings. The main point is that they are flawed and this is what makes characters great.
Mehmed just annoyed me and he got in the way of Lada’s plans.
The book does contain romance, a love triangle where no one expresses their love for anyone as they are too scared of the consequences or that it will stop them from their goals in life. So the romance is frustrating to say the least.
This book has a lot of political intrigue,so be prepared for wars,treaties,soldiers and their ranks. This is Historical fiction but as in the author’s notes at the end it is not accurate and a lot is made up. Religion is also touched upon, mostly Islam with Christianity but it’s not too in your face or info dumping. The book is nearly 500 pages long! I felt it could have been shorter. I enjoyed the relationship between Radu and Lada,it was a very different set-up from what we are used to. This did take me a little longer to read as in places it was very slow and I found myself getting bored.
This book covers themes such as sibling rivalry, relationships, families, romance, feminism, sexism and politics
<img src="https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1476160834l/22817331.jpg"; width="120" height="180"/>
Now I Rise is the second installment of the And I Darken saga which is due to be released in June 2017 which I will be reading as I am interested in what is going to happen next with Lada.
Overall I rated this 3.5 out of 5 stars
And I Darken is a new Historical fiction/Re-telling of Vlad the Impaler but gender swapped. Goodreads have it listed as being a fantasy, but there is no magic or any paranormal goings on whatsoever…glad we got that cleared up.
Our story follows Ladislav (Lada) and Radu Dragwyla the descendants of Vlad Dracul, Prince of Wallachia. Vlad is a vile human being and uses his own children for bargaining with the Ottoman Empire, there lives are at risk if he does not keep to the treaties terms. Living in the Ottoman Empire is risky for Lada and Radu, Lada could easily be married off to some suitor for allegiance or killed whichever is easier for the Sultan. Running the grounds they bump into a young boy the same age as them, only to find that he is the Sultan’s son Mehmed. Mehmed is a lonely boy with only his tutors for company so he befriends them both and shares all his education and time with them, which in turn takes them out of the spotlight.
Lada is a very strong character, she is a force to be reckoned with. She is brutal,fierce and just a total badass throughout the book. Being born a woman is one almighty struggle to be taken seriously in the 1400’s. She knows that she is the rightful heir of Wallachia at the young age of 11. She wants to impress her father with her fighting skills and there is a point when she thinks she has, but the only thoughts her father has is marrying her off to a suitor and being a dutiful wife. Lada is very family orientated and has a very unique relationship with her brother Radu but she will never show any emotion as this is a sign of weakness and she is perceived as a cold-hearted bitch.
Radu was always a disappointment to his father, weak,cowardly and clinging to his nursemaids side infuriated Vlad. Radu was the more emotional of siblings, even though he was not great at fighting he had a devious and cunning mind that made him equally as dangerous as Lada.
My feelings towards the characters changed a lot throughout the book at first I thought Lada was just a psychotic child but realised she is trying to prove herself as being fierce. Radu he was very sweet throughout the book and always wanted his sister to just open up and tell him she loved him and for him to tell her his secrets and feelings. The main point is that they are flawed and this is what makes characters great.
Mehmed just annoyed me and he got in the way of Lada’s plans.
The book does contain romance, a love triangle where no one expresses their love for anyone as they are too scared of the consequences or that it will stop them from their goals in life. So the romance is frustrating to say the least.
This book has a lot of political intrigue,so be prepared for wars,treaties,soldiers and their ranks. This is Historical fiction but as in the author’s notes at the end it is not accurate and a lot is made up. Religion is also touched upon, mostly Islam with Christianity but it’s not too in your face or info dumping. The book is nearly 500 pages long! I felt it could have been shorter. I enjoyed the relationship between Radu and Lada,it was a very different set-up from what we are used to. This did take me a little longer to read as in places it was very slow and I found myself getting bored.
This book covers themes such as sibling rivalry, relationships, families, romance, feminism, sexism and politics
<img src="https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1476160834l/22817331.jpg"; width="120" height="180"/>
Now I Rise is the second installment of the And I Darken saga which is due to be released in June 2017 which I will be reading as I am interested in what is going to happen next with Lada.
Overall I rated this 3.5 out of 5 stars
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
From Director Spike Lee comes the incredible story of true American hero. In the early 1970s, Ron Stallworth (John David Washington) is the first African-American detective to serve in the Colorado Springs Police Department. Determined to make a name for himself, Stallworth bravely sets out on a dangerous mission: infiltrate and expose the Ku Klux Klan. The movie is based on Stallworth’s 2014 book Black Klansman, which details his experience. When it came time to meet the Klan members face-to-face, he utilized the help of a white undercover narcotics officer (Adam Driver in the movie), who posed as Stallworth for all in-person meetings with the Klan. Together, they team up to take down the extremist hate group as the organization aims to sanitize its violent rhetoric to appeal to the mainstream.
The film is very creative in the way that it presents history and allows the audience ride along with the action, suspense, and anxiety experience by Washington and Driver’s characters. The tone of the film, at times, is lighthearted in its approach but quickly draws you back in when faced with the reality that David Duke, and people like him walk among us dressing up their racism with non-threatening slogans, professional attire, and a clean-cut package.
The story displayed is a reminder that racism in America has a long history and is not isolated geographically to the south nor limited to Charlottesville or Charleston. The attitudes and actions committed by those who agree with the stances of white supremacy and white supremacist organizations have had a drastic impact on the development of American society. It has shaped and misshapen our attitudes towards one another. It continues to affect us today as we all bear witness to unbridled racism or the downplaying of racism with terms like “political correctness.” This film is timely in its approach and offers audiences a more full and expansive view of what combatting racism and racist attitudes and actions looks like.
Blackkklansman is a film that many have waited for when first hearing about the story of Ron Stallworth and they will not be disappointed with what they witness on screen. Sadly, the people who desperately need to see this movie may pass on it because they are uncomfortable with the subject matter and the reality that they themselves may be complicit in the continuance of racism and white supremacy. This film feels like a conversation being conducted directly between the director and audience. There are subtleties that allow the audience to think about the meaning and even parallel between the early 1970s and the current political environment, as well as, moments where there is no hiding of the message, no metaphor, no allegory. The filmmakers make it clear for those watching that many of us need to wake up almost as blatantly as Spike Lee promotes one of his earlier films, School Daze.
The only problem I found with the film was that I was left wanting more discussion. I wanted to see more of what Ron Stallworth dealt with as the only black detective in his department. If anything, this shows a real strength in the film by leaving audiences emotionally connected with the horrors that he faced, as well as, the way that those around him come to grips with the reality of the hatred and racial violence that had overlooked before because it did not have a direct effect on them. Blackkklansman is a film that will have audiences reflecting long after the credits have rolled. Hopefully the themes, metaphors, and overall message will help foster overdue and well-needed conversations about race, racism, prejudice, and violence. This film takes audiences out of their comfort zones and forces them to face some of the dark corners of America for two hours. Within that two hours, hopefully the people who don’t recognize racism and bigotry get a glimpse of the true horror and fear that marginalized communities feel on a daily basis so that they themselves can be agents of change and fight against racism.
The film is very creative in the way that it presents history and allows the audience ride along with the action, suspense, and anxiety experience by Washington and Driver’s characters. The tone of the film, at times, is lighthearted in its approach but quickly draws you back in when faced with the reality that David Duke, and people like him walk among us dressing up their racism with non-threatening slogans, professional attire, and a clean-cut package.
The story displayed is a reminder that racism in America has a long history and is not isolated geographically to the south nor limited to Charlottesville or Charleston. The attitudes and actions committed by those who agree with the stances of white supremacy and white supremacist organizations have had a drastic impact on the development of American society. It has shaped and misshapen our attitudes towards one another. It continues to affect us today as we all bear witness to unbridled racism or the downplaying of racism with terms like “political correctness.” This film is timely in its approach and offers audiences a more full and expansive view of what combatting racism and racist attitudes and actions looks like.
Blackkklansman is a film that many have waited for when first hearing about the story of Ron Stallworth and they will not be disappointed with what they witness on screen. Sadly, the people who desperately need to see this movie may pass on it because they are uncomfortable with the subject matter and the reality that they themselves may be complicit in the continuance of racism and white supremacy. This film feels like a conversation being conducted directly between the director and audience. There are subtleties that allow the audience to think about the meaning and even parallel between the early 1970s and the current political environment, as well as, moments where there is no hiding of the message, no metaphor, no allegory. The filmmakers make it clear for those watching that many of us need to wake up almost as blatantly as Spike Lee promotes one of his earlier films, School Daze.
The only problem I found with the film was that I was left wanting more discussion. I wanted to see more of what Ron Stallworth dealt with as the only black detective in his department. If anything, this shows a real strength in the film by leaving audiences emotionally connected with the horrors that he faced, as well as, the way that those around him come to grips with the reality of the hatred and racial violence that had overlooked before because it did not have a direct effect on them. Blackkklansman is a film that will have audiences reflecting long after the credits have rolled. Hopefully the themes, metaphors, and overall message will help foster overdue and well-needed conversations about race, racism, prejudice, and violence. This film takes audiences out of their comfort zones and forces them to face some of the dark corners of America for two hours. Within that two hours, hopefully the people who don’t recognize racism and bigotry get a glimpse of the true horror and fear that marginalized communities feel on a daily basis so that they themselves can be agents of change and fight against racism.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.