Search
Search results
Peter G. (247 KP) rated Gangs of New York (2002) in Movies
Jun 17, 2019
Intriguing story of the internal battle to control the poor and immigrant controlled areas of a bustling and dangerous early New York.
Di Caprio is very good here as the avenging son of a gang member under the wing of William Cutting played by Daniel Day Lewis who for me steals this one as the crazy anti immigrant gang leader.
Di Caprio is very good here as the avenging son of a gang member under the wing of William Cutting played by Daniel Day Lewis who for me steals this one as the crazy anti immigrant gang leader.
Amy Fine Collins recommended My Man Godfrey (1957) in Movies (curated)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Siege (1998) in Movies
Jun 10, 2020
In The Name Of Freedom
The Siege- is a good action movie, that the plot of this movie, is still happening today.
The plot: After terrorists attack a bus in Brooklyn, a Broadway theater and FBI headquarters, FBI anti-terrorism expert Anthony Hubbard (Denzel Washington) teams up with CIA agent Elise Kraft (Annette Bening) to investigate. Soon, martial law is declared in New York City, and General William Devereaux (Bruce Willis), a sadistic racist, is put in command. When Devereaux begins rounding up Arab-Americans and forcing them into a detention camp, Hubbard and Kraft must fight back in the name of freedom.
Like i said its a good action suspense thriller. Its only downfall is that we have seen this before, but its still a good movie.
The plot: After terrorists attack a bus in Brooklyn, a Broadway theater and FBI headquarters, FBI anti-terrorism expert Anthony Hubbard (Denzel Washington) teams up with CIA agent Elise Kraft (Annette Bening) to investigate. Soon, martial law is declared in New York City, and General William Devereaux (Bruce Willis), a sadistic racist, is put in command. When Devereaux begins rounding up Arab-Americans and forcing them into a detention camp, Hubbard and Kraft must fight back in the name of freedom.
Like i said its a good action suspense thriller. Its only downfall is that we have seen this before, but its still a good movie.
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Tudor Rose in Books
Dec 21, 2018
This book was written over 50 years ago, so I suppose we must make some allowances for light that has been shed on past events between now and then, but still, there were a number of silly errors in this book which didn't help its credibility: the pre-contract was with Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot) and for some odd reason the book gives her given name as Joan, and Edmund Tudor died of the plague and not in battle.
Overall the book follows a somewhat traditionalist stance, although Henry Tudor comes across as pretty cold and unlikeable. I wasn't convinced by some of the internal logic and some of the characterisation though. Anne Neville, for example. She is a figure we really don't know that much about, but it's hard to conceive she could be as simple and naive as she is portrayed here! Barnes does try it on a bit with trying to make us wonder if 'Perkin' is really Richard of York (and here the historical novelist has licence, because we really don't know!), despite having Bess keep adamantly stating that she knows her brothers are dead. We're also told that Elizabeth Woodville believes they died, which might lead one to question why she would have a finger in a rebellion against her daughter as queen consort? And if everybody really believed this, why did Sir William Stanley lose his head for saying he wouldn't fight against 'Perkin' if he was really a son of Edward IV - and that is in the historical record as well as this novel. There's an awful lot about Bess believing both Richard and Henry have potentially been culpable in acts of murder, but she herself in this novel is guilty of an act of treachery that is at least as bad!
Not a badly written novel, but I found it frustrating overall!
Overall the book follows a somewhat traditionalist stance, although Henry Tudor comes across as pretty cold and unlikeable. I wasn't convinced by some of the internal logic and some of the characterisation though. Anne Neville, for example. She is a figure we really don't know that much about, but it's hard to conceive she could be as simple and naive as she is portrayed here! Barnes does try it on a bit with trying to make us wonder if 'Perkin' is really Richard of York (and here the historical novelist has licence, because we really don't know!), despite having Bess keep adamantly stating that she knows her brothers are dead. We're also told that Elizabeth Woodville believes they died, which might lead one to question why she would have a finger in a rebellion against her daughter as queen consort? And if everybody really believed this, why did Sir William Stanley lose his head for saying he wouldn't fight against 'Perkin' if he was really a son of Edward IV - and that is in the historical record as well as this novel. There's an awful lot about Bess believing both Richard and Henry have potentially been culpable in acts of murder, but she herself in this novel is guilty of an act of treachery that is at least as bad!
Not a badly written novel, but I found it frustrating overall!
I received a digital copy from the author in exchange for an honest review.
Contemporary, young adult, romance, fantasy, steampunk, action... is there any category this book does not fit in to?! Jordan Elizabeth takes readers on a journey from New York to a fantasy world that very few knows exist in her recent novel Lock. Sarah Lockwood, the protagonist, thought the Realm was a story her late father used to tell her, however, when she discovers it is real, she jumps at the chance to visit, not realising the dangers that lie ahead.
Sarah is a self-sufficient young woman who has been living with her belly-dancing aunt since the death of her parents. Invited to stay with her Uncle William, she feels obliged to accept, however, almost regrets the decision after the cold welcome she receives. The gardener's son Archer, however, soon takes her mind off her troubles, particularly when he suggests travelling to a parallel world.
Archer comes from a family of Record Writers and it is his job to record the daily goings-on in the Realm. Sarah soon learns the Realm no longer lives up to the descriptions in the fairytales. A usurper has murdered the royal family and the inhabitants live in constant fear and poverty. Whilst this is shocking, Sarah unveils another revelation: the usurper is someone from her world, someone very close to home.
Although Lock has similarities with fantasy lands such as Narnia, it is written for a slightly older generation of readers. Sarah is 19 years old and some scenes are markedly "adult". There is also a lot of bloodshed and the occasional expletive. Nonetheless, it is a fast-paced, exciting story.
Once again, Jordan Elizabeth has written a book that is unlike the others she has written before. It is difficult to categorise the author and her novels since they are so diverse, however, one thing is for sure: Jordan Elizabeth knows how to tell a good story.
Contemporary, young adult, romance, fantasy, steampunk, action... is there any category this book does not fit in to?! Jordan Elizabeth takes readers on a journey from New York to a fantasy world that very few knows exist in her recent novel Lock. Sarah Lockwood, the protagonist, thought the Realm was a story her late father used to tell her, however, when she discovers it is real, she jumps at the chance to visit, not realising the dangers that lie ahead.
Sarah is a self-sufficient young woman who has been living with her belly-dancing aunt since the death of her parents. Invited to stay with her Uncle William, she feels obliged to accept, however, almost regrets the decision after the cold welcome she receives. The gardener's son Archer, however, soon takes her mind off her troubles, particularly when he suggests travelling to a parallel world.
Archer comes from a family of Record Writers and it is his job to record the daily goings-on in the Realm. Sarah soon learns the Realm no longer lives up to the descriptions in the fairytales. A usurper has murdered the royal family and the inhabitants live in constant fear and poverty. Whilst this is shocking, Sarah unveils another revelation: the usurper is someone from her world, someone very close to home.
Although Lock has similarities with fantasy lands such as Narnia, it is written for a slightly older generation of readers. Sarah is 19 years old and some scenes are markedly "adult". There is also a lot of bloodshed and the occasional expletive. Nonetheless, it is a fast-paced, exciting story.
Once again, Jordan Elizabeth has written a book that is unlike the others she has written before. It is difficult to categorise the author and her novels since they are so diverse, however, one thing is for sure: Jordan Elizabeth knows how to tell a good story.
Deborah (162 KP) rated Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses in Books
Dec 21, 2018
For starters, the book is entitled Bosworth Field & the Wars of the Roses. Discussion of Bosworth is pretty much restricted to one short chapter and about the first third of the book is taken up with an over-detailed account of the events leading up to the Wars of the Roses; if Rowse is concerned about 'Wars of the Roses' being a misnomer, perhaps he should look to his own title! Yes, the events from the disposition of Richard II in 1399 and the usurpation of his throne by Bolingbroke do have an impact on later events, but a third of the book? Do we really need to know the ins and outs of Sir John Oldcastle's Lollard leanings - I fail to see how this is relevant.
Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!
He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.
Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.
So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.
Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!
He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.
Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.
So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.
Illeana Douglas recommended Rosemary's Baby (1968) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Winter's Tale (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
“Winter’s Tale”, starring Colin Farrell (Peter Lake), Jessica Brown Findlay (Beverly Penn), Russell Crowe (Pearly Soames), William Hurt (Isaac Penn), Jennifer Connelly (Virginia Gamely) and Will Smith (The Judge) is a fantastic love story, although the beginning was a little slow. It did help define the three different timelines involved in the plot
After a brief scene set in 1895, where we see a set of parents put their baby in a model ship, lower him down into the Hudson River and set him afloat, the timeline jumps to 1916. In this timeline we meet Peter Lake and Pearly Soames for the first time, and are drawn into their story of good versus evil. As Pearly hunts for Peter, in order to destroy him, Peter is assisted by a beautiful white horse named Athansor. The horse is absolutely stunning and along with the incredible use of light throughout the movie, it is possibly one of the most memorable things about the film. The stallion is the guardian angel of the adult Peter – and he flies! The CGI was seamless and beautiful.
As Peter tries again and again to escape Pearly, he ends up meeting Beverly who is ill with consumption. Of course, it’s a love story and they fall in love. Farrell and Penn’s portrayal of their characters’ romance was so poignant, you will need to have tissues on hand. Throughout the movie a voiceover says “inside each of us is a miracle, a miracle intended for one person alone.” The plot twists connected to that statement were just enough to keep me guessing – often incorrectly.
It was a total and complete shock to see Will Smith play an antagonist so well. Russell Crowe was great as Pearly, very believable as a demon obsessed with getting his way and wreaking vengeance on someone who he saw as having “done him wrong.”
When the storyline jumped to present day New York, 2014, the imagery of the lights and stars helped with the transition but the magic of the film seemed to disappear afterwards. While the last third of the movie was not hard to follow, it was still a bit hard to understand its point right away. I definitely felt like the movie lost some momentum after the jump to present day. In the end, it just felt like there was something missing – possibly left in the editing room. Maybe we’ll find it on the DVD extras.
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars.
After a brief scene set in 1895, where we see a set of parents put their baby in a model ship, lower him down into the Hudson River and set him afloat, the timeline jumps to 1916. In this timeline we meet Peter Lake and Pearly Soames for the first time, and are drawn into their story of good versus evil. As Pearly hunts for Peter, in order to destroy him, Peter is assisted by a beautiful white horse named Athansor. The horse is absolutely stunning and along with the incredible use of light throughout the movie, it is possibly one of the most memorable things about the film. The stallion is the guardian angel of the adult Peter – and he flies! The CGI was seamless and beautiful.
As Peter tries again and again to escape Pearly, he ends up meeting Beverly who is ill with consumption. Of course, it’s a love story and they fall in love. Farrell and Penn’s portrayal of their characters’ romance was so poignant, you will need to have tissues on hand. Throughout the movie a voiceover says “inside each of us is a miracle, a miracle intended for one person alone.” The plot twists connected to that statement were just enough to keep me guessing – often incorrectly.
It was a total and complete shock to see Will Smith play an antagonist so well. Russell Crowe was great as Pearly, very believable as a demon obsessed with getting his way and wreaking vengeance on someone who he saw as having “done him wrong.”
When the storyline jumped to present day New York, 2014, the imagery of the lights and stars helped with the transition but the magic of the film seemed to disappear afterwards. While the last third of the movie was not hard to follow, it was still a bit hard to understand its point right away. I definitely felt like the movie lost some momentum after the jump to present day. In the end, it just felt like there was something missing – possibly left in the editing room. Maybe we’ll find it on the DVD extras.
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Miss Congeniality 2 - Armed and Fabulous (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
As the weather starts to warm, indicating the coming spring and summer seasons, scores of sequels arrive at local box offices. Sequels have always been desired by Hollywood because, thanks in part to the success of previous titles in the series, a built in audience helps assure big openings.
With the Ring 2 kicking off the sequel frenzy to solid numbers this year, Warner Bros. is hoping to cash in on the success of the Sandra Bullock hit Miss Congeniality, with the release of Miss Congeniality 2 :Armed and Fabulous.
The film opens a few weeks after the events of the first film and underscores agent Gracie Hart’s struggles to get back into field work now that she’s a celebrity. When an undercover operation goes sour in part to Gracie’s new found notoriety, it is decided that she will be removed from field work and placed as the new face of the F.B.I. in an effort to increase public image. Assigned to watch her back, Gracie is partnered with a no-nonsense agent named Sam Fuller (Regina King), who has severe attitude issues and is less than thrilled to watch over Gracie especially when Gracie has become a diva thanks to her new found celebrity and numerous appearances on talk shows.
When the current Miss America, and good friend, Cheryl (Heather Burns) is kidnapped along with pageant host Stan Fields (William Shatner), Gracie sets off to Vegas in an effort to help with the case. Her notoriety and unorthodox tactics runs afoul of the local agent in charge Collins (Treat Williams), who wants nothing more than for Gracie to head back to New York and make his life easier.
While the film does have an interesting setup, it soon becomes an overlong sketch comedy as Gracie and Sam show up in costumes ranging from an old Jewish retiree to Tina Turner, with sadly very few laughs in between. I was a big fan of the first film but this effort seems like a project that was created simply to cash in on the success of the first without offering anything new.
The charm and wit of the first film are sadly missed, as this film just plods along without any real payoff. Bullock seems to be walking through her part without the sparkle and shine that made her the beloved girl next door. Fuller seems to have only two emotions and that is pure rage or exasperation. The rest of the cast does not fare much better as Shatner is forced to vamp it up with very little to work with. Only Diedrich Bader gets some laughs albeit cheaply playing the over the top flamboyant fashion consultant named Joel.
Michael Caine and Benjamin Bratt are noticeably absent from this sequel. It seems that they wisely decided to stay clear of this clunker. I had hoped that this film would recapture some of the charm of the original but it plays out as an uninspired effort that seems to have had very little care put into it. My advice, save this for a rental.
With the Ring 2 kicking off the sequel frenzy to solid numbers this year, Warner Bros. is hoping to cash in on the success of the Sandra Bullock hit Miss Congeniality, with the release of Miss Congeniality 2 :Armed and Fabulous.
The film opens a few weeks after the events of the first film and underscores agent Gracie Hart’s struggles to get back into field work now that she’s a celebrity. When an undercover operation goes sour in part to Gracie’s new found notoriety, it is decided that she will be removed from field work and placed as the new face of the F.B.I. in an effort to increase public image. Assigned to watch her back, Gracie is partnered with a no-nonsense agent named Sam Fuller (Regina King), who has severe attitude issues and is less than thrilled to watch over Gracie especially when Gracie has become a diva thanks to her new found celebrity and numerous appearances on talk shows.
When the current Miss America, and good friend, Cheryl (Heather Burns) is kidnapped along with pageant host Stan Fields (William Shatner), Gracie sets off to Vegas in an effort to help with the case. Her notoriety and unorthodox tactics runs afoul of the local agent in charge Collins (Treat Williams), who wants nothing more than for Gracie to head back to New York and make his life easier.
While the film does have an interesting setup, it soon becomes an overlong sketch comedy as Gracie and Sam show up in costumes ranging from an old Jewish retiree to Tina Turner, with sadly very few laughs in between. I was a big fan of the first film but this effort seems like a project that was created simply to cash in on the success of the first without offering anything new.
The charm and wit of the first film are sadly missed, as this film just plods along without any real payoff. Bullock seems to be walking through her part without the sparkle and shine that made her the beloved girl next door. Fuller seems to have only two emotions and that is pure rage or exasperation. The rest of the cast does not fare much better as Shatner is forced to vamp it up with very little to work with. Only Diedrich Bader gets some laughs albeit cheaply playing the over the top flamboyant fashion consultant named Joel.
Michael Caine and Benjamin Bratt are noticeably absent from this sequel. It seems that they wisely decided to stay clear of this clunker. I had hoped that this film would recapture some of the charm of the original but it plays out as an uninspired effort that seems to have had very little care put into it. My advice, save this for a rental.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Iron Man 3 (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
For Tony Stark, (Robert Downey Jr.), life has become very complicated for the self-proclaimed genius, philanthropist, billionaire, and playboy. In the new film “Iron Man 3”, Stark is wracked by insomnia and dread following the battle he waged to save New York in “The Avengers”.
Stark throws himself into his work and endlessly creates new Iron Man suits as well as system upgrades which currently have him at the Mark 42 version which is a huge jump from the Mark VII he was last seen in which was itself a prototype.
When a terrorist named The Mandarin (Sir Ben Kingsley), has unleashed a series of bizarre bombings on the world and has opening challenged the President (William Sadler), Stark is caught up in his own fears, most notably protecting his beloved Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow).
When his friend Happy (John Farveau) is caught in an explosion, Stark openly challenges the Mandarin which results in a devastating helicopter upon Stark and Potts. With the world thinking he has died, Stark sets out to stop the Mandarin at all costs and find a way to battle his inner demons and fears to save the ones he loves and do what he knows is right.
The movie is big on laughs and character as we see a more well-rounded Stark this time out. He is haunted by demons of his past yet committed to improving himself and doing what is right. The film takes a bit of time to get up to speed, but thanks to Downey’s performance you maintain your interest as you are always waiting for what he will do next as he is in total command of the character and never lets the quirks or humor of his situation overshadow his humanity or undermine his performance.
I would have liked to have seen Downey is his armor more kicking butt and taking names, but thankfully the finale is very enjoyable. The converted 3D in the film is very good as although I am not a fan of 3D conversions this was the best I have seen to date as ash, snow, and debris did seem to float into the audience the way it does in films that are shot properly in the new 3D technology.
The supporting cast for the film is very strong especially Kingsley and Guy Pearce and I enjoyed the effort that Writer/Director Shane Black put into allowing the characters time to grow. I was a bit disappointed that Don Cheadle was not given a lot to do in his role especially when playing Iron Patriot/War Machine. The battle at the end of “Iron Man 2” where he and Iron Man took on legions of bad guys had me hoping for more this time out.
That being said, this is a very enjoyable summer movie that shows the franchise is not slowing down or taking the easy road out. There has been discussion that Downey Jr. may step away after the next Avengers film but hopefully that is not to be the case as I could not imagine another actor capturing the role as perfectly as he has.
Following a bonus post credits scene, we are told in the best James Bond style that Tony Stark will return, and you can bet legions of fans will be waiting.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/03/iron-man-3/
Stark throws himself into his work and endlessly creates new Iron Man suits as well as system upgrades which currently have him at the Mark 42 version which is a huge jump from the Mark VII he was last seen in which was itself a prototype.
When a terrorist named The Mandarin (Sir Ben Kingsley), has unleashed a series of bizarre bombings on the world and has opening challenged the President (William Sadler), Stark is caught up in his own fears, most notably protecting his beloved Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow).
When his friend Happy (John Farveau) is caught in an explosion, Stark openly challenges the Mandarin which results in a devastating helicopter upon Stark and Potts. With the world thinking he has died, Stark sets out to stop the Mandarin at all costs and find a way to battle his inner demons and fears to save the ones he loves and do what he knows is right.
The movie is big on laughs and character as we see a more well-rounded Stark this time out. He is haunted by demons of his past yet committed to improving himself and doing what is right. The film takes a bit of time to get up to speed, but thanks to Downey’s performance you maintain your interest as you are always waiting for what he will do next as he is in total command of the character and never lets the quirks or humor of his situation overshadow his humanity or undermine his performance.
I would have liked to have seen Downey is his armor more kicking butt and taking names, but thankfully the finale is very enjoyable. The converted 3D in the film is very good as although I am not a fan of 3D conversions this was the best I have seen to date as ash, snow, and debris did seem to float into the audience the way it does in films that are shot properly in the new 3D technology.
The supporting cast for the film is very strong especially Kingsley and Guy Pearce and I enjoyed the effort that Writer/Director Shane Black put into allowing the characters time to grow. I was a bit disappointed that Don Cheadle was not given a lot to do in his role especially when playing Iron Patriot/War Machine. The battle at the end of “Iron Man 2” where he and Iron Man took on legions of bad guys had me hoping for more this time out.
That being said, this is a very enjoyable summer movie that shows the franchise is not slowing down or taking the easy road out. There has been discussion that Downey Jr. may step away after the next Avengers film but hopefully that is not to be the case as I could not imagine another actor capturing the role as perfectly as he has.
Following a bonus post credits scene, we are told in the best James Bond style that Tony Stark will return, and you can bet legions of fans will be waiting.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/03/iron-man-3/