Search
Search results
The Interactive Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
Book, Education and Stickers
App
iClassics: Beyond Engrossing iClassics unites the old and the new to create immersive experiences...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Robo Vampire (1988) in Movies
Aug 11, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Drug baron Mr Young is fed up with Narcotics agent Tom Wilde interfering with his plans so he hires a Taoist monk to train a vampire to kill him. After his death Tom is rebuilt as an Android Robot and sent on a mission to help rescue a captured officer.
The cover/poster art would have us believe that this is a Robocop vs vampire movie and I suppose that it is in the looses possible sense. First off this is low budget Hong Kong Jiangshi (rotting corpse) movie with added cyborg (Sorry Android Robot) so the vampires are of the hopping type not the western 'gentleman'.
I've given this film a 6 on the basis that it's so bad it's good. Most of the vampires are ok and look like the standard hopping type but the lead vampire seems to be wearing a gorilla mask to make it look rotten. No one bleeds when shot and it's obvious when dummies are used instead of stun doubles . Even taking this into account I would have given Robo Vampire a higher rating but it gets hard to follow. There are two story-lines to follow, the rescue of Sophie, an undercover agent that has been kidnapped and the Tom-robot vs the vampire's and ghost. And this is the first confusing part of the plot. Tom's creators say that he is to be sent on the rescue mission but he is never with the rescue party. Instead he goes off to fight the vampire. So the film switches between the rescue and Tom vs the vampires. Even this wouldn't be a problem except that the story-lines seem to continue even when we're not watching. For example, the rescue party are heading towards the camp with baddies jumping out at them from all directions. The we switch to Robo and when we switch back to the rescue two of the party are swimming in a lake with no sign of any of the others and end up getting captured, then back to Robo, then back the rest of the rescue party who don't even acknowledged that two of their party are missing but aren't surprised when they see them as prisoners. This sort of thing happens a lot, it's almost as if some one just cut out random scenes. Characters also just seem to appear with no introduction and switch sides with no seeming reason.
The cover/poster art would have us believe that this is a Robocop vs vampire movie and I suppose that it is in the looses possible sense. First off this is low budget Hong Kong Jiangshi (rotting corpse) movie with added cyborg (Sorry Android Robot) so the vampires are of the hopping type not the western 'gentleman'.
I've given this film a 6 on the basis that it's so bad it's good. Most of the vampires are ok and look like the standard hopping type but the lead vampire seems to be wearing a gorilla mask to make it look rotten. No one bleeds when shot and it's obvious when dummies are used instead of stun doubles . Even taking this into account I would have given Robo Vampire a higher rating but it gets hard to follow. There are two story-lines to follow, the rescue of Sophie, an undercover agent that has been kidnapped and the Tom-robot vs the vampire's and ghost. And this is the first confusing part of the plot. Tom's creators say that he is to be sent on the rescue mission but he is never with the rescue party. Instead he goes off to fight the vampire. So the film switches between the rescue and Tom vs the vampires. Even this wouldn't be a problem except that the story-lines seem to continue even when we're not watching. For example, the rescue party are heading towards the camp with baddies jumping out at them from all directions. The we switch to Robo and when we switch back to the rescue two of the party are swimming in a lake with no sign of any of the others and end up getting captured, then back to Robo, then back the rest of the rescue party who don't even acknowledged that two of their party are missing but aren't surprised when they see them as prisoners. This sort of thing happens a lot, it's almost as if some one just cut out random scenes. Characters also just seem to appear with no introduction and switch sides with no seeming reason.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Art Therapy Colouring Book in Books
Dec 14, 2018
Doodle and colour your stress away!
See <a href="https://hazelstainer.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/art-therapy-an-anti-stress-colouring-book/">here</a>; and <a href="https://hazelstainer.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/a-middle-fingers-perspective/">here</a>; for image examples:
I was given a copy of this colouring book, Art Therapy, for Christmas a couple of years ago, before they became the latest craze. It was not until during the past half a year that I seriously got into colouring. Some people scoff and ridicule the idea that colouring can relieve stress, however, in my experience, it really can!
This particular book contains drawings from three different illustrators: Hannah Davies, Richard Merritt and Cindy Wilde; however you would not know it as all the pages are a similar style. The images range from animals, flowers and objects, to basic and complicated patterns.
With hundreds of colouring books to choose from, what makes Art Therapy, and others from the same series, different from the rest? Firstly, most of the patterns have been started for you. Some people may argue this is a negative point, yet I find it quite useful. I use the starting colours as a theme to stick to throughout the page (see above for examples). I like structure and rule following therefore this is a great book for me. Secondly, the book is split into to halves: images and patterns to colour in, and unfinished images and patterns. The second part of the book allows the owner of the book to finish the outlines of the colouring pages however they wish before colouring them in. This helps to nurture and develop illustration skills. I have not attempted these pages yet as I am moving through the book methodically (I did say I like structure and rule following!), I will post examples at a later date.
The paper quality is extremely good, a lot better than many other colouring books I have come across. Even though I do not use them (I only use pencils), this book should be suitable for felt tip pens – although I would avoid Sharpies, they go through everything!
Now the downside… it is a hardback. Not the easiest to colour in with it on your lap whilst watching television (although I manage some how). I have only completed 21 pages so far and I am already worried that it is going to fall apart. Having said that, the other day I noticed that The Works were selling a paper back version! Perhaps invest in that format if you are thinking of buying this book.
See <a href="https://hazelstainer.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/art-therapy-an-anti-stress-colouring-book/">here</a>; and <a href="https://hazelstainer.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/a-middle-fingers-perspective/">here</a>; for image examples:
I was given a copy of this colouring book, Art Therapy, for Christmas a couple of years ago, before they became the latest craze. It was not until during the past half a year that I seriously got into colouring. Some people scoff and ridicule the idea that colouring can relieve stress, however, in my experience, it really can!
This particular book contains drawings from three different illustrators: Hannah Davies, Richard Merritt and Cindy Wilde; however you would not know it as all the pages are a similar style. The images range from animals, flowers and objects, to basic and complicated patterns.
With hundreds of colouring books to choose from, what makes Art Therapy, and others from the same series, different from the rest? Firstly, most of the patterns have been started for you. Some people may argue this is a negative point, yet I find it quite useful. I use the starting colours as a theme to stick to throughout the page (see above for examples). I like structure and rule following therefore this is a great book for me. Secondly, the book is split into to halves: images and patterns to colour in, and unfinished images and patterns. The second part of the book allows the owner of the book to finish the outlines of the colouring pages however they wish before colouring them in. This helps to nurture and develop illustration skills. I have not attempted these pages yet as I am moving through the book methodically (I did say I like structure and rule following!), I will post examples at a later date.
The paper quality is extremely good, a lot better than many other colouring books I have come across. Even though I do not use them (I only use pencils), this book should be suitable for felt tip pens – although I would avoid Sharpies, they go through everything!
Now the downside… it is a hardback. Not the easiest to colour in with it on your lap whilst watching television (although I manage some how). I have only completed 21 pages so far and I am already worried that it is going to fall apart. Having said that, the other day I noticed that The Works were selling a paper back version! Perhaps invest in that format if you are thinking of buying this book.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Carrie (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
If you’ve got a taste for terror…take Carrie to the Prom.”
Chloe Grace Moretz plays Carrie, an extremely shy outcast who is bullied by her peers for being “strange” and “different”. Her mother Margaret White (Julian Moore) is an overprotective and a religious extremist who uses her strange beliefs in the form of abuse on her daughter Carrie. Like all teens, Carrie would very much like to be normal and fit in. Her mothers crazy religious beliefs keeps her from teaching Carrie the basics of becoming a woman in the hopes that she will be kept “pure”.
The schools gym teacher Mrs Desjardin (Judy Greer) takes a liking to Carrie and tries to keep her protected from popular mean girls, Chris Hargenson (Portia Doubleday) who is the “leader of the pack” and Sue Snell (Gabrielle Wilde). Sue soon regrets her actions towards Carrie and though Chris does not, Sue devises a plan to be able to make it up to Carrie. Sue asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to do her a favor by taking Carrie to the prom and showing her a magical night. When Carrie is pushed too far by her peers she unleashes telekinetic powers over all who have hurt her.
Most fans of horror know all too well about Carrie. This could be the fact that the film itself has been reimagined twice . The 1976 version won an Oscar Nomination for Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. It was well deserved then and may be well deserved now for the young Chloe who has been making great strides in her acting career since the Amityvile horror. She does a great job at embodying the archetypal superhero kind of character. Julian Moore is perfect in the role of Carrie’s mom, adding more creepiness to the character. This adaption by director Kimberly Pierce (Stop Loss, Boys Don’t Cry) is kept closer to Mr. King’s novel. Pierce makes the audience fall in love with Carrie and wants to see her succeed in her power and in herself.
Though the movie stays closer to the novel it still doesn’t stray far from it’s two predecessors. Pierce’ is my preferred version as she uses more modern effects and we can now visually see Carrie’s powers come to life instead of just burrowing eyes hinting towards powers that are being used. This film is perfect for any horror fan and those that like a great vengeful story about a girl who wanted to just be normal.
Chloe Grace Moretz plays Carrie, an extremely shy outcast who is bullied by her peers for being “strange” and “different”. Her mother Margaret White (Julian Moore) is an overprotective and a religious extremist who uses her strange beliefs in the form of abuse on her daughter Carrie. Like all teens, Carrie would very much like to be normal and fit in. Her mothers crazy religious beliefs keeps her from teaching Carrie the basics of becoming a woman in the hopes that she will be kept “pure”.
The schools gym teacher Mrs Desjardin (Judy Greer) takes a liking to Carrie and tries to keep her protected from popular mean girls, Chris Hargenson (Portia Doubleday) who is the “leader of the pack” and Sue Snell (Gabrielle Wilde). Sue soon regrets her actions towards Carrie and though Chris does not, Sue devises a plan to be able to make it up to Carrie. Sue asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to do her a favor by taking Carrie to the prom and showing her a magical night. When Carrie is pushed too far by her peers she unleashes telekinetic powers over all who have hurt her.
Most fans of horror know all too well about Carrie. This could be the fact that the film itself has been reimagined twice . The 1976 version won an Oscar Nomination for Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. It was well deserved then and may be well deserved now for the young Chloe who has been making great strides in her acting career since the Amityvile horror. She does a great job at embodying the archetypal superhero kind of character. Julian Moore is perfect in the role of Carrie’s mom, adding more creepiness to the character. This adaption by director Kimberly Pierce (Stop Loss, Boys Don’t Cry) is kept closer to Mr. King’s novel. Pierce makes the audience fall in love with Carrie and wants to see her succeed in her power and in herself.
Though the movie stays closer to the novel it still doesn’t stray far from it’s two predecessors. Pierce’ is my preferred version as she uses more modern effects and we can now visually see Carrie’s powers come to life instead of just burrowing eyes hinting towards powers that are being used. This film is perfect for any horror fan and those that like a great vengeful story about a girl who wanted to just be normal.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Love the Coopers (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Love the Coopers is a new movie directed by Jessie Nelson and released
through the collaborative efforts of CBS Films, Groundswell Productions
and Imagine Entertainment.
It has a large and recognizable cast of characters, including Dianne
Keaton (Charlotte), John Goodman (Sam), Ed Helms (Hank), Alan Arky
(Bucky), Marisa Tomei (Emma), Olivia Wilde (Eleanor), June Squibb (Aunt
Fishy) and Steve Martin (the dog, Rags!).
Based on the previews and trailers that I saw, I expected more laugh out
loud comedy than I got out of the film. There was plenty of laugh out
loud comedy, don’t get me wrong, but what I expected out of the trailers
was a “dumb” comedy, rather than a poignant, rather touching (and at
times tragic) love story wrapped up in a comedy.
The basic premise is that Mom Charlotte and dad Sam want to have “one
last” family holiday full of happiness and good cheer and wonderful
memories, before they drop the bombshell on their family that they will
be splitting up after 40 years of marriage.
Charlotte has spent her whole marriage keeping the family together,
making sure everyone is “ok” and of course, as frequently happens, has
grown distant from her spouse Sam in the midst of that.
The story is told from the point of view of Rags the family dog (voiced
by Steve Martin) who has watched the family grow together and then
apart, through the years.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and thought that it was a good story
that showed how a family dynamic can change over the years and how it
isn’t always in the best of ways. It also portrayed how family
relationships are perceived from the point of view of the people that
are actually IN the relationship, as well as from an outsiders’ view.
Some parts were “cheesy” but for the most part, I was really able to
connect with the story as a whole. Even though some of the intertwining
story lines by themselves were a little dis-jointed, when they all came
together under the umbrella of the main story line, somehow, it just
worked.
I liked that I connected emotionally with Charlotte and could FEEL her
connection to her kids and how she loved them “bigger than anything” and
just wanted what was best for them, even though it didn’t always come
out that way, and even though it distanced her from her husband. I think
that happens “in the real world”, a lot more than people realize or
think about.
The movie made me laugh, and it made me cry… It occasionally made me
groan in a “Really?! Did they have to do THAT??” sort of way, too, but
overall I really enjoyed it.
I would give the movie 3.5 out of 5 stars.
through the collaborative efforts of CBS Films, Groundswell Productions
and Imagine Entertainment.
It has a large and recognizable cast of characters, including Dianne
Keaton (Charlotte), John Goodman (Sam), Ed Helms (Hank), Alan Arky
(Bucky), Marisa Tomei (Emma), Olivia Wilde (Eleanor), June Squibb (Aunt
Fishy) and Steve Martin (the dog, Rags!).
Based on the previews and trailers that I saw, I expected more laugh out
loud comedy than I got out of the film. There was plenty of laugh out
loud comedy, don’t get me wrong, but what I expected out of the trailers
was a “dumb” comedy, rather than a poignant, rather touching (and at
times tragic) love story wrapped up in a comedy.
The basic premise is that Mom Charlotte and dad Sam want to have “one
last” family holiday full of happiness and good cheer and wonderful
memories, before they drop the bombshell on their family that they will
be splitting up after 40 years of marriage.
Charlotte has spent her whole marriage keeping the family together,
making sure everyone is “ok” and of course, as frequently happens, has
grown distant from her spouse Sam in the midst of that.
The story is told from the point of view of Rags the family dog (voiced
by Steve Martin) who has watched the family grow together and then
apart, through the years.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and thought that it was a good story
that showed how a family dynamic can change over the years and how it
isn’t always in the best of ways. It also portrayed how family
relationships are perceived from the point of view of the people that
are actually IN the relationship, as well as from an outsiders’ view.
Some parts were “cheesy” but for the most part, I was really able to
connect with the story as a whole. Even though some of the intertwining
story lines by themselves were a little dis-jointed, when they all came
together under the umbrella of the main story line, somehow, it just
worked.
I liked that I connected emotionally with Charlotte and could FEEL her
connection to her kids and how she loved them “bigger than anything” and
just wanted what was best for them, even though it didn’t always come
out that way, and even though it distanced her from her husband. I think
that happens “in the real world”, a lot more than people realize or
think about.
The movie made me laugh, and it made me cry… It occasionally made me
groan in a “Really?! Did they have to do THAT??” sort of way, too, but
overall I really enjoyed it.
I would give the movie 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Chambers Dictionary of Great Quotations
Book
With over 25,000 quotations from over 4,000 sources, The Chambers Dictionary of Great Quotations is...
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) created a post
Oct 22, 2022
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated More Holmes for the Holidays in Books
Mar 1, 2018
[a:Martin H. Greenberg|6436872|Martin H. Greenberg|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-M-50x66.jpg] and company have provided a fine collection of Sherlockian holiday stories that fit in quite well with the traditional set.
"The Christmas Gift" by Anne Perry is a nice little piece about a stolen Stradivarius and a couple who want to marry against the wishes of the young lady's father. There is an excellent red herring, one of the few in this anthology.
In "The Four Wise Men" by Peter Lovesey, Watson must answer a call to duty from his former commanding officer in the Army, in order to help guard a medieval treasure in a Christmas pageant. The game is soon afoot, and Sherlock's powers of observation are as keen as ever.
Barbara Paul's "Eleemosynary, My Dear Watson" gives Holmes a jewel theft and a kidnapping to solve, which he does in his inimitable way. One clue seemed slightly too obvious to me, but it may not to other readers.
In "The Adventure of the Greatest Gift" by Loren D. Estleman, Holmes receives a wax cylinder containing a recording of a song popular in America. He takes it as a warning of a crime which could lead to war between Britain and France, and of course he leaps into action. This is Mycroft Holmes' only appearance in the volume.
There's plenty of misdirection in "The Case of the Rajah's Emerald" by Carolyn Wheat. Somehow, though, I suspected one of the great revelations in this one from the beginning, but I couldn't tell you exactly why. It didn't ruin the story for me, and there was still a surprise at the end.
On the other hand, Edward D. Hoch's "The Christmas Conspiracy" managed to take me completely unawares. I couldn't fathom why the crime would be committed or by whom, despite having a major clue dropped by one character. Very well done!
"The Music of Christmas" by L.B. Greenwood telegraphed the identity of the criminal from the start, but was well worth reading. One of the characters also tugged at the heartstrings.
Bill Crider's "The Adventure of the Christmas Bear" is largely memorable because of the appearance of Oscar Wilde as a character.
"The Adventure of the Naturalist's Stock Pin" by Jon L. Breen gives us Charles Darwin as Holmes' client. The mystery is less Sherlockian than some of the others, but I didn't mind reading it.
Daniel Stashower's "The Adventure of the Second Violet" was an interesting twist on a well-known Christmas story. I cannot say more without spoiling it, but he has a nice touch.
"The Human Mystery" by Tanith Lee is as dark as I expect from her, and was a depressing ending to the collection. It was, however, very well-written.
The anthology left me hungry for more Holmes, and wishing that I weren't between seasons of BBC's Sherlock or that I had another collection of stories on hand. That's the sign of a success, I think.
"The Christmas Gift" by Anne Perry is a nice little piece about a stolen Stradivarius and a couple who want to marry against the wishes of the young lady's father. There is an excellent red herring, one of the few in this anthology.
In "The Four Wise Men" by Peter Lovesey, Watson must answer a call to duty from his former commanding officer in the Army, in order to help guard a medieval treasure in a Christmas pageant. The game is soon afoot, and Sherlock's powers of observation are as keen as ever.
Barbara Paul's "Eleemosynary, My Dear Watson" gives Holmes a jewel theft and a kidnapping to solve, which he does in his inimitable way. One clue seemed slightly too obvious to me, but it may not to other readers.
In "The Adventure of the Greatest Gift" by Loren D. Estleman, Holmes receives a wax cylinder containing a recording of a song popular in America. He takes it as a warning of a crime which could lead to war between Britain and France, and of course he leaps into action. This is Mycroft Holmes' only appearance in the volume.
There's plenty of misdirection in "The Case of the Rajah's Emerald" by Carolyn Wheat. Somehow, though, I suspected one of the great revelations in this one from the beginning, but I couldn't tell you exactly why. It didn't ruin the story for me, and there was still a surprise at the end.
On the other hand, Edward D. Hoch's "The Christmas Conspiracy" managed to take me completely unawares. I couldn't fathom why the crime would be committed or by whom, despite having a major clue dropped by one character. Very well done!
"The Music of Christmas" by L.B. Greenwood telegraphed the identity of the criminal from the start, but was well worth reading. One of the characters also tugged at the heartstrings.
Bill Crider's "The Adventure of the Christmas Bear" is largely memorable because of the appearance of Oscar Wilde as a character.
"The Adventure of the Naturalist's Stock Pin" by Jon L. Breen gives us Charles Darwin as Holmes' client. The mystery is less Sherlockian than some of the others, but I didn't mind reading it.
Daniel Stashower's "The Adventure of the Second Violet" was an interesting twist on a well-known Christmas story. I cannot say more without spoiling it, but he has a nice touch.
"The Human Mystery" by Tanith Lee is as dark as I expect from her, and was a depressing ending to the collection. It was, however, very well-written.
The anthology left me hungry for more Holmes, and wishing that I weren't between seasons of BBC's Sherlock or that I had another collection of stories on hand. That's the sign of a success, I think.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Mellow paced - nothing special
89 year old Director/Actor Clint Eastwood has mellowed with age. He seems at peace with himself and prefers to work at a pace that he sets. His latest Directing effort - RICHARD JEWELL - has that sort of mellowness. It takes it time to tell it's story with no real urgency to it.
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Mammoth Book of Great British Humour
Book
A doorstopper of a collection of the very best of both contemporary and classic British wit and...