Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Black Mass (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
He was one of the most dangerous men and most notorious gangsters in American history. For over sixteen years he evaded the FBI and law enforcement until his eventual capture in 2011. Black Mass tells the story of James “Whitey” Bulger and his alliance with the FBI. The film delves deep into the relationship that is built between Bulger and FBI agents which allows him to expand his power beyond the Boston area. Audiences will be awestruck by the actions permitted and overlooked on the part of FBI agents working with Bulger which fall in line with the advice that Bulger gives his son: “If no one saw it, it didn’t happen.”
Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean, Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissorhands) assumes the role of Bulger and audiences will not be able to take their eyes off of him in this film. Every movement, word, and action that he provides on screen demonstrates his versatility and ability to wear the skin and assume identity of those that he portrays. His portrayal of Whitey Bulger separates him from the “Jack Sparrow” identity that his audiences have become accustomed to. Even more impressive about his acting is the way in which the film’s direction displays more of a human element to this monster. The audience is shown countless acts of brutality undertaken by Bulger or on his orders, but there are moments in which you feel a sense of sorrow for the character. In no way do the moments allow for redemption or offer excuses for his actions, but it allows for the portrayal of a more human element. Humanizing Bulger allows for a much fuller picture of what took place during his life and demonstrates that crime was not the only factor.
The film takes all of us into a very dark place. We see a monster in action. We see countless people fall victim to Bulger and his organization. Depp intimidates not only the other characters being portrayed, but the audience in the way that his eyes always seem so cold and heartless. It is said that when you look into someone’s eyes, you can see their soul. With Whitey Bulger, his soul is absent whenever he is portrayed onscreen. This helps to solidify Depp’s portrayal of Bulger and the way that he lived his life. He was a cold, heartless monster. The only sense of a soul or any humanity comes with the direction of the film to make this monster human.
Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean, Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissorhands) assumes the role of Bulger and audiences will not be able to take their eyes off of him in this film. Every movement, word, and action that he provides on screen demonstrates his versatility and ability to wear the skin and assume identity of those that he portrays. His portrayal of Whitey Bulger separates him from the “Jack Sparrow” identity that his audiences have become accustomed to. Even more impressive about his acting is the way in which the film’s direction displays more of a human element to this monster. The audience is shown countless acts of brutality undertaken by Bulger or on his orders, but there are moments in which you feel a sense of sorrow for the character. In no way do the moments allow for redemption or offer excuses for his actions, but it allows for the portrayal of a more human element. Humanizing Bulger allows for a much fuller picture of what took place during his life and demonstrates that crime was not the only factor.
The film takes all of us into a very dark place. We see a monster in action. We see countless people fall victim to Bulger and his organization. Depp intimidates not only the other characters being portrayed, but the audience in the way that his eyes always seem so cold and heartless. It is said that when you look into someone’s eyes, you can see their soul. With Whitey Bulger, his soul is absent whenever he is portrayed onscreen. This helps to solidify Depp’s portrayal of Bulger and the way that he lived his life. He was a cold, heartless monster. The only sense of a soul or any humanity comes with the direction of the film to make this monster human.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Long and Dark in Books
Apr 20, 2020
From the moment I read the synopsis for The Long and Dark, I was intrigued by this mysterious place and the bravery of this man to commence this adventure, knowing it may cost his life.
Gareth has always played by the books. Paid to do whatever people tell him to do. Never thinking deeper than what lies on the surface. Never needed to. Satisfied in his day to day world, his perfect bubble bursts when his wife and kid are infected with a disease that will kill them sooner or later.
Knowing this is the only solution, Gareth is commencing on an adventure to the mysterious Dineothan and its capital, Upelstbohr, a place unknown to many. Rumours are that this place is populated with the greatest minds alive. Other rumours are that this place is cursed and cut off from the outside world.
With no other options, our hero goes into this adventure, hoping for the best, but the path is not that easy…
My Thoughts:
Overall, I enjoyed The Long and Dark. As a character, I liked Gareth. I admired his dedication and motivation to keep going. His will to never give up to save his family left me deeply troubled, knowing how rare these characteristics are to be found in people nowadays. His sacrifice reminded me of today’s selfish humans walking on Earth, and reminded me of how precious this trait really is.
“Please feel free to visit again if you are so inclined. You will find me here. As a man with all the time in the world, reading is the only pleasure I have left.”
Gareth is also a character that does what he is told. That is what he has done all his life, and I was so bored to see him getting in trouble over and over again in this book, because he followed other people’s advice. However, he does learn from this, and we can see a huge character development of him by the end of this book. That scene was remarkable. A pleasure to read.
Apart from Gareth, I couldn’t really connect with any other character. They were all coming and going as far as I was concerned. I didn’t invest any emotions into them whatsoever. At times, I was also bored with the plot, as it felt we are not going anywhere for a couple of pages.
An interesting adventure read for sure, but not a remarkable one, unfortunately. It is a great book to spend your free time on, but you might not remember it after a year. I still recommend The Long and Dark to the adventure seekers!
Gareth has always played by the books. Paid to do whatever people tell him to do. Never thinking deeper than what lies on the surface. Never needed to. Satisfied in his day to day world, his perfect bubble bursts when his wife and kid are infected with a disease that will kill them sooner or later.
Knowing this is the only solution, Gareth is commencing on an adventure to the mysterious Dineothan and its capital, Upelstbohr, a place unknown to many. Rumours are that this place is populated with the greatest minds alive. Other rumours are that this place is cursed and cut off from the outside world.
With no other options, our hero goes into this adventure, hoping for the best, but the path is not that easy…
My Thoughts:
Overall, I enjoyed The Long and Dark. As a character, I liked Gareth. I admired his dedication and motivation to keep going. His will to never give up to save his family left me deeply troubled, knowing how rare these characteristics are to be found in people nowadays. His sacrifice reminded me of today’s selfish humans walking on Earth, and reminded me of how precious this trait really is.
“Please feel free to visit again if you are so inclined. You will find me here. As a man with all the time in the world, reading is the only pleasure I have left.”
Gareth is also a character that does what he is told. That is what he has done all his life, and I was so bored to see him getting in trouble over and over again in this book, because he followed other people’s advice. However, he does learn from this, and we can see a huge character development of him by the end of this book. That scene was remarkable. A pleasure to read.
Apart from Gareth, I couldn’t really connect with any other character. They were all coming and going as far as I was concerned. I didn’t invest any emotions into them whatsoever. At times, I was also bored with the plot, as it felt we are not going anywhere for a couple of pages.
An interesting adventure read for sure, but not a remarkable one, unfortunately. It is a great book to spend your free time on, but you might not remember it after a year. I still recommend The Long and Dark to the adventure seekers!
Laura Doe (1350 KP) rated The Secret Life of Albert Entwistle in Books
Jul 5, 2021
Characters (1 more)
Plot
This book had me tearing up so many times while reading it both with sadness and happiness. We follow Albert, a postman, who keeps himself to himself and likes to keep his private life private… from everyone. He’s happy with his routine and doesn’t envision anything changing. That’s until 3 months before his 65th birthday he is given his notice of retirement. What follows is the opposite of everything that Alfred wished for.
He decides that he needs to track down the love of his life, George, who he’s not seen for 50 years. The only problem? He doesn’t know where to start! Along the way he asks for help from the unlikeliest people who go on to become his friends.
One of these is struggling single mum Nicole, who is bringing up her daughter Reenie in a new town away from any family and friends while struggling with her brand new relationship and the doubts of why someone would want to take her and her daughter on. Nicole helps Albert with technology and on his journey to find George whilst also listening to the advice from Albert to fight for what she wants in life.
Every single character in this book it extremely lovable. And while I wanted it to end, at the same time I didn’t because it meant I would have to leave Albert and Nicole’s world. Being a northerner and currently living in Lancashire, I have loved the accent coming through in the pages and the references to so many places that I have frequented. It has been so beautifully written, that you can’t help but want the best for Albert and hope that he finds his George. There’s a lot of mystery surrounding their last meeting and it’s not until near to the end that you find out what actually happened to them for them to lose touch.
With echoes of Saving Missy, this showed just how lonely people can become when they get stuck in their own routines and live alone but with the right people around us, the world can become a whole lot less lonely.
Thank you to Matt Cain and Pigeonhole for letting me read this beautiful and “terrific” love story, I didn’t want to have to leave Albert by the end of it but at the same time was so glad of all the changes that he had been through. 100% a 5 star book for me!
He decides that he needs to track down the love of his life, George, who he’s not seen for 50 years. The only problem? He doesn’t know where to start! Along the way he asks for help from the unlikeliest people who go on to become his friends.
One of these is struggling single mum Nicole, who is bringing up her daughter Reenie in a new town away from any family and friends while struggling with her brand new relationship and the doubts of why someone would want to take her and her daughter on. Nicole helps Albert with technology and on his journey to find George whilst also listening to the advice from Albert to fight for what she wants in life.
Every single character in this book it extremely lovable. And while I wanted it to end, at the same time I didn’t because it meant I would have to leave Albert and Nicole’s world. Being a northerner and currently living in Lancashire, I have loved the accent coming through in the pages and the references to so many places that I have frequented. It has been so beautifully written, that you can’t help but want the best for Albert and hope that he finds his George. There’s a lot of mystery surrounding their last meeting and it’s not until near to the end that you find out what actually happened to them for them to lose touch.
With echoes of Saving Missy, this showed just how lonely people can become when they get stuck in their own routines and live alone but with the right people around us, the world can become a whole lot less lonely.
Thank you to Matt Cain and Pigeonhole for letting me read this beautiful and “terrific” love story, I didn’t want to have to leave Albert by the end of it but at the same time was so glad of all the changes that he had been through. 100% a 5 star book for me!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Churchill (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We will bore them on the beaches”.
“Churchill” tells the story of the great leader’s extreme opposition to “Operation Overlord”, the Eisenhower-led invasion of Normandy in 1944 that ultimately led – more by luck that judgement perhaps – to the fall of the Third Reich in the following year.
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
Rachel King (13 KP) rated On Writing in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I have not now nor ever been a fan of Stephen King's fiction, nor do I intend to change that pattern. His personal brand of fiction is simply not for me. But since this book is non-fiction, curiosity got the better of me. I am glad that I read this book very much, for both the memoir of his writing life, as well as the writing skills he attempts to impart.
The first half of the book is largely a memoir of King's life, with a focus on his writing career. The reader learns things such as what inspired him, what he liked in fiction, his initial forays into getting published, as well as his many rejections and criticisms. I found it both interesting and ironic that his first big book, Carrie, was accomplished largely thanks to his wife's encouragement, as he never really cared for the main character. He could take the simplest ideas, put two random thoughts together, and make them into these successful stories. All of this is woven into the more mundane aspects of his life, from schooling, to various jobs, to meeting his future wife.
The second part of the book is all about what King considers good writing practices, as well some of the advice that King has received over the years, such as when writing a second draft, subtract 10% from the original. He even goes into the details of good grammar and repeatedly refers to Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. He finishes off this section by showing a section of a first draft he wrote, and then the edited second draft of it to give the reader an idea of how to approach the editing process.
A final section in the book goes into the details of when King was hit and nearly killed by a "blue van" and the effect that it had on his life and his writing. The accident actually occurs before he begins the second part of this book, giving the manuscript the possibility of never being completed. This was probably the most intriguing part of the book for me, as he was able to remember in vivid detail what happened to him, and yet he seemed to be oddly emotionally-detached from its long-term consequences for his life. There is only one short paragraph in which I actually pick up on some emotion, when he discusses how quickly the driver of the blue van will likely be returning to the road. At one point he also made the observation that the driver could have stepped from the pages of one of his novels. What I do love is that his passion for writing helped him to overcome his injuries and regenerate that need to keep putting words to the page.
The first half of the book is largely a memoir of King's life, with a focus on his writing career. The reader learns things such as what inspired him, what he liked in fiction, his initial forays into getting published, as well as his many rejections and criticisms. I found it both interesting and ironic that his first big book, Carrie, was accomplished largely thanks to his wife's encouragement, as he never really cared for the main character. He could take the simplest ideas, put two random thoughts together, and make them into these successful stories. All of this is woven into the more mundane aspects of his life, from schooling, to various jobs, to meeting his future wife.
The second part of the book is all about what King considers good writing practices, as well some of the advice that King has received over the years, such as when writing a second draft, subtract 10% from the original. He even goes into the details of good grammar and repeatedly refers to Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. He finishes off this section by showing a section of a first draft he wrote, and then the edited second draft of it to give the reader an idea of how to approach the editing process.
A final section in the book goes into the details of when King was hit and nearly killed by a "blue van" and the effect that it had on his life and his writing. The accident actually occurs before he begins the second part of this book, giving the manuscript the possibility of never being completed. This was probably the most intriguing part of the book for me, as he was able to remember in vivid detail what happened to him, and yet he seemed to be oddly emotionally-detached from its long-term consequences for his life. There is only one short paragraph in which I actually pick up on some emotion, when he discusses how quickly the driver of the blue van will likely be returning to the road. At one point he also made the observation that the driver could have stepped from the pages of one of his novels. What I do love is that his passion for writing helped him to overcome his injuries and regenerate that need to keep putting words to the page.
This book takes a Biblical viewpoint of how the modern woman can lead the best life she can attain while still following the guidelines of the Bible and living up to her personal potential. It uses the personal examples of the two authors, as well as the examples of numerous others that these two have interacted with over the course of writing the book. A systematic approach is taken to break down the history, statistics, and advantages of the modern woman before studiously approaching the Biblical model of the female.
One of the main focuses of the book is the Biblical mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" and how modern culture has both minimized and scorned this. The authors also focus on the differences between males and females, as well as their different purposes in life. Marriage is also a central theme in the book, with the authors providing lots of advice, as well as suggestions to study other resources, in order to find a husband and maintain a healthy marriage.
To stress certain points throughout the book, the authors provide a visual illustration of the concepts discussed. They summarize the lessons taught in certain sections in a "Wise Steps" box, and they fill the book with sections that invite the reader to journal his own thoughts according to a certain topic.
What I found the most interesting about the book was how the authors broke down the multiple purposes of any woman into three categories: our purpose as humans (Core Callings), our purpose as women (Feminine Callings), and our purpose as unique individuals (Personal Callings). Each of these are further broken down, with the Core Callings having the most emphasis throughout the book: Leave and Cleave, Be Fruitful and Multiply, and Subdue and Rule.
I had a difficult time getting through this book, partly because I felt that some of the information provided simply did not apply to me and I did not find it particularly useful. I did agree with most of what the authors interpreted from Biblical scriptures, though I disliked the broad usage of many different Biblical translations. As with any Biblically-based self-help book, the Bible should be the first source and the book should be secondary. I also felt that Feldhahn used the book somewhat as a self-promotional tool, since she often refers to her previously-written book, For Women Only: What You Need to Know about the Inner Lives of Men.
All the same, I appreciated the Biblical perspective and the support of marriage-minded women and stay-at-home moms. There is much wisdom in the pages of this book.
One of the main focuses of the book is the Biblical mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" and how modern culture has both minimized and scorned this. The authors also focus on the differences between males and females, as well as their different purposes in life. Marriage is also a central theme in the book, with the authors providing lots of advice, as well as suggestions to study other resources, in order to find a husband and maintain a healthy marriage.
To stress certain points throughout the book, the authors provide a visual illustration of the concepts discussed. They summarize the lessons taught in certain sections in a "Wise Steps" box, and they fill the book with sections that invite the reader to journal his own thoughts according to a certain topic.
What I found the most interesting about the book was how the authors broke down the multiple purposes of any woman into three categories: our purpose as humans (Core Callings), our purpose as women (Feminine Callings), and our purpose as unique individuals (Personal Callings). Each of these are further broken down, with the Core Callings having the most emphasis throughout the book: Leave and Cleave, Be Fruitful and Multiply, and Subdue and Rule.
I had a difficult time getting through this book, partly because I felt that some of the information provided simply did not apply to me and I did not find it particularly useful. I did agree with most of what the authors interpreted from Biblical scriptures, though I disliked the broad usage of many different Biblical translations. As with any Biblically-based self-help book, the Bible should be the first source and the book should be secondary. I also felt that Feldhahn used the book somewhat as a self-promotional tool, since she often refers to her previously-written book, For Women Only: What You Need to Know about the Inner Lives of Men.
All the same, I appreciated the Biblical perspective and the support of marriage-minded women and stay-at-home moms. There is much wisdom in the pages of this book.
Fred (860 KP) rated Case Closed in TV
May 27, 2019
If you can overlook the silly & useless premise, this is one great anime
Every review you'll see of this show or book, will tell you the back story of "Case Closed". They'll tell you how the teenage Shinichi Kudo (a genius detective) is given an experimental pill by some thugs and is transformed into a child again. He calls himself Conan Edogawa & wherever he goes, a crime happens & he solves the crime. He keeps his predicament to himself & an inventor friend of his. The inventor gives him Bond type gadgets that help him get by, since he's a child again. One of these gadgets, a bow-tie, changes his voice, so he can sound exactly like anyone. When he solves the crime, he knocks out an adult with a dart hidden in his watch, hides behind the sleeping adult, talks through his bow-tie to sound like the adult & tells everyone within earshot who the criminal is.
Now, I love anime & I love this show. But, this is maybe the silliest premise ever in an anime. And it's an utterly useless premise. Having Conan as a child serves no purpose in the show at all. He still acts like an adult & most of the time, he's just hanging out with his girlfriend (who doesn't know Conan is her boyfriend) & her father (who is a detective & a very bad one at that). This little "kid" is allowed to walk around the crime scene (usually a dead body) like it's perfectly normal. He sometimes gives the clues he finds out loud. Most of the time, the adults take his advice, other times, they yell at him to shut up, even though he has given clues that have solved the crimes before hand. It just doesn't make any sense. If he's going to act like an adult, just make his character an adult. The side-story of the thugs who changed him is hardly (if ever) brought up again. It's pointless.
Luckily, most of the detective stories themselves are great enough to overlook the premise. Well, almost overlook them. Whenever I see Conan crouching behind a chair, speaking into his tie, I cringe at how silly it is.) The characters are realistic & the stories are very dark sometimes. Definitely not for kids (another reason the premise is stupid). The animation itself is top notch & each character stands out, so you can tell them apart when trying to figure out "who did it". I do recommend this show to anime fans & people who like detective shows. I would have given it a 10, but the premise is just too ridiculous. Still, knocking it 2 points is not bad.
Now, I love anime & I love this show. But, this is maybe the silliest premise ever in an anime. And it's an utterly useless premise. Having Conan as a child serves no purpose in the show at all. He still acts like an adult & most of the time, he's just hanging out with his girlfriend (who doesn't know Conan is her boyfriend) & her father (who is a detective & a very bad one at that). This little "kid" is allowed to walk around the crime scene (usually a dead body) like it's perfectly normal. He sometimes gives the clues he finds out loud. Most of the time, the adults take his advice, other times, they yell at him to shut up, even though he has given clues that have solved the crimes before hand. It just doesn't make any sense. If he's going to act like an adult, just make his character an adult. The side-story of the thugs who changed him is hardly (if ever) brought up again. It's pointless.
Luckily, most of the detective stories themselves are great enough to overlook the premise. Well, almost overlook them. Whenever I see Conan crouching behind a chair, speaking into his tie, I cringe at how silly it is.) The characters are realistic & the stories are very dark sometimes. Definitely not for kids (another reason the premise is stupid). The animation itself is top notch & each character stands out, so you can tell them apart when trying to figure out "who did it". I do recommend this show to anime fans & people who like detective shows. I would have given it a 10, but the premise is just too ridiculous. Still, knocking it 2 points is not bad.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Creed II (2018) in Movies
Dec 7, 2018
Good Enough
By my count, this is the 8th time that Sylvester Stallone has put on the character of Rocky Balboa. This time it comes after the resurgence of this character (and franchise) with the introduction of Adonis Creed (Michael B. Jordan) and a script that allowed Stallone to explore the character in a way that he had not previously been able to - and garnered him a well-deserved Oscar nomination for his efforts.
In CREED II we are back to an above average by-the-numbers boxing picture with Jordan's Adonis Creed character starting the picture on top, losing it all when he loses himself (and stops listening to Rocky) in his success only to go on a journey of redemption (by following Rocky's advice) at the end. This is, in essence, a regurgitation of ROCKY III and I was somewhat bored by it.
That is, until the final bout, then (gosh darnnit) I was drawn right into the melodrama, pomp and pageantry of the fight and was cheering along with the rest of the audience at all the appropriate moments.
In Creed II, Apollo Creed's son battles Ivan Drago's son. For those of you not up on your Rocky history, Drago (Dolph Lundgren, reprising his role) was the boxer that killed Apollo Creed (Adonis' father) in the ring all those years ago.
Jordan is properly cocky, arrogant, stubborn, shell-shocked, morose, repentant and cocky (again) as the script would indicate. Tessa Thompson (as his wife) deserves better material than what she is given as does Stallone, who falls back to "being Rocky" without anything really new here. Surprisingly, Dolph Lundgren does a nice job as the washed-up boxer who's life was "ruined" when he lost to Rocky at the end of Rocky IV (not a spoiler). Finally, Russel Horsnby (as the "I just want to earn money" promoter of the fight) and Phylicia Rashad (as Adonis' mother/Apollo's wife) are both really good in roles that deserved to be much bigger - and more fleshed out - than they were.
My biggest disappointment from this film is the ommision of Director Ryan Coogler. He brought a visceral attitude to the series in the first CREED film and I felt that this spark of energy was just missing throughout this film with Steven Caple, Jr at the helm. It seemed, to me, that this series is quickly devolving into "paycheck" movies for Stallone and that really saddens me.
All-in-all a rather above average "by-the-numbers" boxing flick with a really good fight at the end of the film that is well worth sticking around for.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
In CREED II we are back to an above average by-the-numbers boxing picture with Jordan's Adonis Creed character starting the picture on top, losing it all when he loses himself (and stops listening to Rocky) in his success only to go on a journey of redemption (by following Rocky's advice) at the end. This is, in essence, a regurgitation of ROCKY III and I was somewhat bored by it.
That is, until the final bout, then (gosh darnnit) I was drawn right into the melodrama, pomp and pageantry of the fight and was cheering along with the rest of the audience at all the appropriate moments.
In Creed II, Apollo Creed's son battles Ivan Drago's son. For those of you not up on your Rocky history, Drago (Dolph Lundgren, reprising his role) was the boxer that killed Apollo Creed (Adonis' father) in the ring all those years ago.
Jordan is properly cocky, arrogant, stubborn, shell-shocked, morose, repentant and cocky (again) as the script would indicate. Tessa Thompson (as his wife) deserves better material than what she is given as does Stallone, who falls back to "being Rocky" without anything really new here. Surprisingly, Dolph Lundgren does a nice job as the washed-up boxer who's life was "ruined" when he lost to Rocky at the end of Rocky IV (not a spoiler). Finally, Russel Horsnby (as the "I just want to earn money" promoter of the fight) and Phylicia Rashad (as Adonis' mother/Apollo's wife) are both really good in roles that deserved to be much bigger - and more fleshed out - than they were.
My biggest disappointment from this film is the ommision of Director Ryan Coogler. He brought a visceral attitude to the series in the first CREED film and I felt that this spark of energy was just missing throughout this film with Steven Caple, Jr at the helm. It seemed, to me, that this series is quickly devolving into "paycheck" movies for Stallone and that really saddens me.
All-in-all a rather above average "by-the-numbers" boxing flick with a really good fight at the end of the film that is well worth sticking around for.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Yes Man (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Carl Allen (Jim Carrey) is a man that has shut himself away from life following a divorce. Despite the best efforts of his friends Peter (Bradley Cooper), and Rooney (Danny Masterson), Carl is content to keep his life to toiling away in a dead end banking job and limiting his social activity to renting DVDs and watching them at home alone.
Following another disappoint day at work where he learned that he is once again being overlooked for a promotion, Carl runs into an old friend who tells him about a seminar that changed his life and has freed him up to do and be what he wants.
With his curiosity peaked, Carl attends the seminar that is conducted by the charismatic Terrance Bundley (Terrance Stamp), who decides to make Carl his project, and tells him that he must agree to say yes to things that are offered to him. Although reluctant, Carl takes the advice and says yes to the first thing he is asked, which is to give a ride to a stranger.
The chance ride and resulting situations that follow lead Carl to meet a quirky and attractive lady named Allison (Zooey Deschanel), who intrigues Carl. The next day, Carl learns that he is getting the promotion and despite getting into some outrageous and at times, scary situations, he continues to say Yes to everything that is offered to him, as he fears the consequences of breaking the covenant of yes.
Carl eventually meets up with Allison again and learns that she spends her evenings singing in a unique band, and the two begin a relationship soon after. What follows is a very funny and amusing story that tracks the crazy events that follow Carl as he begins to open himself not only to Allison but to the possibilities that life presents to him every day when one makes themselves open to new possibilities.
The film is based on the book by Danny Wallace which covers his exploits when he decided to yes to everything thing presented to him for one year. While the film has little in common with the book aside from the title and saying yes premise.
“Yes Man” is Carrey’s best film in years and is a triumphant return to the comedy films that made him such a huge success. He plays Carl with a very likeable and easygoing manner that makes him easy to root for and his energetic performance once again proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is one of the most gifted comedians of our generation.
Despite the differences in their ages, Carrey and Deschanel make a winning combination and the strong supporting cast anchored by Stamp, Cooper, and Rhys Darby make this a very funny and enjoyable comedy.
Following another disappoint day at work where he learned that he is once again being overlooked for a promotion, Carl runs into an old friend who tells him about a seminar that changed his life and has freed him up to do and be what he wants.
With his curiosity peaked, Carl attends the seminar that is conducted by the charismatic Terrance Bundley (Terrance Stamp), who decides to make Carl his project, and tells him that he must agree to say yes to things that are offered to him. Although reluctant, Carl takes the advice and says yes to the first thing he is asked, which is to give a ride to a stranger.
The chance ride and resulting situations that follow lead Carl to meet a quirky and attractive lady named Allison (Zooey Deschanel), who intrigues Carl. The next day, Carl learns that he is getting the promotion and despite getting into some outrageous and at times, scary situations, he continues to say Yes to everything that is offered to him, as he fears the consequences of breaking the covenant of yes.
Carl eventually meets up with Allison again and learns that she spends her evenings singing in a unique band, and the two begin a relationship soon after. What follows is a very funny and amusing story that tracks the crazy events that follow Carl as he begins to open himself not only to Allison but to the possibilities that life presents to him every day when one makes themselves open to new possibilities.
The film is based on the book by Danny Wallace which covers his exploits when he decided to yes to everything thing presented to him for one year. While the film has little in common with the book aside from the title and saying yes premise.
“Yes Man” is Carrey’s best film in years and is a triumphant return to the comedy films that made him such a huge success. He plays Carl with a very likeable and easygoing manner that makes him easy to root for and his energetic performance once again proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is one of the most gifted comedians of our generation.
Despite the differences in their ages, Carrey and Deschanel make a winning combination and the strong supporting cast anchored by Stamp, Cooper, and Rhys Darby make this a very funny and enjoyable comedy.
JT (287 KP) rated American Reunion (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Alot of time has passed since 1999, and in that time there have been a long line of spin off American Pie films, if you don’t count the sequel and American Pie: The Wedding. Of those films only Jim’s Dad (Eugene Levy) has starred in every single one, so it was brilliant to see all the old gang back together again, and how we have missed them all.
The gang is back together – but was it worth it?
Grown up and with adult lives, they head back to where it all began for a high school reunion which of course involves a whole heap of laughter, and there is plenty of that.
Jim and Michelle are now married with a small child and stuck in a rut of a no sex marriage, Oz now a hot shot sports reporter has trouble controlling his high maintenance girlfriend. Kevin is seemingly happy as a house husband and Finch is still very much the enigma of the group, and then of course there’s Stifler, probably the only character not to have changed at all.
There are some outrageous moments, right from the opening scene, even giving a hint of what is going to happen would suck any laughter out of you so for that I am not going to reveal too much. Let’s just say it is once again Jim who pretty much steals the show.
The group start to look at themselves and realise that they are very much all grown up with things never able to be the same again, as Jim harshly points out to Stifler in one scene.
There is through all the hilarity some touching moments, in particularly featuring Jim’s Dad who is getting over the passing of his wife and takes some advice from Jim himself to get back onto the dating horse. This of course results in some more outlandish behaviour at another Stifler party.
The American Pie franchise is very much an icon of teenage angst, at least for those films that matter to us. I doubt anyone would have sat through any of the American Pie Presents films.
American Reunion manages to get the whole cast back together, even if they are only on screen for a brief few minutes its like seeing an old friend once again. It’s almost as if we can resonate with every character and are pleased that their lives have turned out or are going to turn out for the better.
The film climaxes with a killer piece of revenge courtesy of Stifler, one which in the back of our minds we knew was coming and involves a well cast cameo.
It might not be everyone’s chosen comedy of 2012, but its sure as hell going to be up there!
The gang is back together – but was it worth it?
Grown up and with adult lives, they head back to where it all began for a high school reunion which of course involves a whole heap of laughter, and there is plenty of that.
Jim and Michelle are now married with a small child and stuck in a rut of a no sex marriage, Oz now a hot shot sports reporter has trouble controlling his high maintenance girlfriend. Kevin is seemingly happy as a house husband and Finch is still very much the enigma of the group, and then of course there’s Stifler, probably the only character not to have changed at all.
There are some outrageous moments, right from the opening scene, even giving a hint of what is going to happen would suck any laughter out of you so for that I am not going to reveal too much. Let’s just say it is once again Jim who pretty much steals the show.
The group start to look at themselves and realise that they are very much all grown up with things never able to be the same again, as Jim harshly points out to Stifler in one scene.
There is through all the hilarity some touching moments, in particularly featuring Jim’s Dad who is getting over the passing of his wife and takes some advice from Jim himself to get back onto the dating horse. This of course results in some more outlandish behaviour at another Stifler party.
The American Pie franchise is very much an icon of teenage angst, at least for those films that matter to us. I doubt anyone would have sat through any of the American Pie Presents films.
American Reunion manages to get the whole cast back together, even if they are only on screen for a brief few minutes its like seeing an old friend once again. It’s almost as if we can resonate with every character and are pleased that their lives have turned out or are going to turn out for the better.
The film climaxes with a killer piece of revenge courtesy of Stifler, one which in the back of our minds we knew was coming and involves a well cast cameo.
It might not be everyone’s chosen comedy of 2012, but its sure as hell going to be up there!