Search
Search results
EmersonRose (320 KP) rated Alfred: And The Underworld in Books
Nov 20, 2019
“Yes Alfred, that is it. I love you. I love you so much. And I am worried. I, we, your father and I, and even Tirnalth – we chose this life for you. We fled for you. A great magic was unleashed to help us, for you Alfred. It helped us escape a world fallen to darkness”
Alfred and the Underworld is the second volume of Alfred: The Boy King series by author Ron Smorynski. Published on November 2017, this book continues Alfred’s journey as the King of Westfold. After spending some time back with his mother in the human world researching and preparing, he goes back to his people. Things are not going well, and Alfred has a lot of work to do to help his people get back on their feet and defend themselves from the darkness that surrounds them.
In this book, Smorynski continues not only with this adventure-filled story but has continued to build up his fantasy world. Alfred encounters several new magical creatures, both good and bad around his kingdom. We also get a further building of the magical system and who has access to magic, which adds to the world and what is possible within it. Another interesting aspect was the history and politics that took a forefront position in this book. We are given a better grasp of the world outside of Alfred’s little kingdom. There are more players in the game now some that could be allies and some that have allied themselves with the evil in the land.
I really enjoyed that in this book we get to see different perspectives. While mostly told from Alfred’s point of view, we also get sneak peaks into both his mother’s mind and the enemies Alfred, and his people are fighting. This was interesting because these other characters are privy to information Alfred does not have access to and helps build the intrigue of the story. I particularly liked the chapters focused on Alfred’s mother. Through the excitement of Alfred building up his kingdom and the thrill of preparing for battle and defeating enemies, the mother is a reminder of a big picture and a deeper mystery. Throughout the first book we were given pieces of the life that she left behind when she brought Alfred to our world, and slowly those pieces are coming together.
I greatly enjoyed this book and am excited about the third book in the series Alfred and the Quest of the Knights. Alfred and the Underworld was an exciting, fun, and interesting story on its own, but it also set up nicely for the next installment. Between the big bad that is Gorbogal the witch and the truth bomb that was dropped on Alfred in the last sentence as a cliffhanger, this book as left me desperately waiting for more.
Alfred and the Underworld is the second volume of Alfred: The Boy King series by author Ron Smorynski. Published on November 2017, this book continues Alfred’s journey as the King of Westfold. After spending some time back with his mother in the human world researching and preparing, he goes back to his people. Things are not going well, and Alfred has a lot of work to do to help his people get back on their feet and defend themselves from the darkness that surrounds them.
In this book, Smorynski continues not only with this adventure-filled story but has continued to build up his fantasy world. Alfred encounters several new magical creatures, both good and bad around his kingdom. We also get a further building of the magical system and who has access to magic, which adds to the world and what is possible within it. Another interesting aspect was the history and politics that took a forefront position in this book. We are given a better grasp of the world outside of Alfred’s little kingdom. There are more players in the game now some that could be allies and some that have allied themselves with the evil in the land.
I really enjoyed that in this book we get to see different perspectives. While mostly told from Alfred’s point of view, we also get sneak peaks into both his mother’s mind and the enemies Alfred, and his people are fighting. This was interesting because these other characters are privy to information Alfred does not have access to and helps build the intrigue of the story. I particularly liked the chapters focused on Alfred’s mother. Through the excitement of Alfred building up his kingdom and the thrill of preparing for battle and defeating enemies, the mother is a reminder of a big picture and a deeper mystery. Throughout the first book we were given pieces of the life that she left behind when she brought Alfred to our world, and slowly those pieces are coming together.
I greatly enjoyed this book and am excited about the third book in the series Alfred and the Quest of the Knights. Alfred and the Underworld was an exciting, fun, and interesting story on its own, but it also set up nicely for the next installment. Between the big bad that is Gorbogal the witch and the truth bomb that was dropped on Alfred in the last sentence as a cliffhanger, this book as left me desperately waiting for more.
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)
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Mar 12, 2020
did i speak too soon?
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you've read my other reviews, you know that I'm currently in a Hitchcock film class. I've been dreading watching his films because of the ones I've seen, with the exception of Psycho, have been the same story told in different ways. I was equally as dreadful when it came to watching this film. However, I was pleasantly surprised.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Heat (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In a fun twist to the traditional buddy-cop movie theme, this time we have a pair of ladies bringing The Heat to the streets of Boston for a laugh-out-loud good time.
Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy bring action and some very sharp tongues to the big screen.
The story starts out by painting a picture of the two in their separate worlds. Special Agent Ashburn (Bullock) is very prim, proper, and by-the-book. She dresses for success, knows it all, and doesn’t let so much as an S-bomb pass her lips. As she solves a case (proving herself a know-it-all in front of coworkers), a bleak picture comes into focus that this very uptight FBI agent is just the beginning.
By contrast (and fitting the expected formula), Detective Mullins (McCarthy) uses a down-and-dirty, physical, and foul-mouthed method for cleaning up the streets of Boston. Her neighborhood is definitely her home, and it needs protecting. Mullins’ slovenly lifestyle is the complete polar opposite of Ashburn, as one might expect. This conflict is the driving force behind a typical buddy cop movie. The only difference is that it’s two women instead of the usual ingredients.
Ashburn is given an assignment in Boston. The assignment will be a key, deciding factor in her next promotion, so all she wants is a simple case to solve and close. Naturally, once Mullins and Ashburn meet, sparks fly and hilarity ensues.
I went into this with low expectations, but also a deep loathing for Sandra Bullock as an actress — every role she’s ever played has been essentially the same. I expected the same in The Heat. In an oh-so-surprising twist of fate, she ended up playing the sober, strait-laced character! Despite my lack of appreciation for her acting skills, I must say she did well; her comedic timing was spot-on, and it meshed well with McCarthy’s usual brand of comedy: vociferous and physical, bordering on slapstick. I did note during the film that Bullock is definitely starting to show her age; this is not a knock on her beauty, but more an admission that I am starting to feel old!
Mullins also plays the same character in every movie role she takes, so this character was no stretch for her at all. It seems she is just there to memorize lines and provide her unabashed, high-energy quips. That said, I have to give her mad props for comedic timing and delivery. She is a one-trick-pony, but that one trick is a damn good one.
All in all, this is a great film for laughs. I laughed out loud through much of it, which was a surprise. As with all comedies, I don’t recommend spending your hard-earned cash on these top-dollar theater tickets. Wait for the small screen, but definitely see it for a good, healthy chuckle.
Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy bring action and some very sharp tongues to the big screen.
The story starts out by painting a picture of the two in their separate worlds. Special Agent Ashburn (Bullock) is very prim, proper, and by-the-book. She dresses for success, knows it all, and doesn’t let so much as an S-bomb pass her lips. As she solves a case (proving herself a know-it-all in front of coworkers), a bleak picture comes into focus that this very uptight FBI agent is just the beginning.
By contrast (and fitting the expected formula), Detective Mullins (McCarthy) uses a down-and-dirty, physical, and foul-mouthed method for cleaning up the streets of Boston. Her neighborhood is definitely her home, and it needs protecting. Mullins’ slovenly lifestyle is the complete polar opposite of Ashburn, as one might expect. This conflict is the driving force behind a typical buddy cop movie. The only difference is that it’s two women instead of the usual ingredients.
Ashburn is given an assignment in Boston. The assignment will be a key, deciding factor in her next promotion, so all she wants is a simple case to solve and close. Naturally, once Mullins and Ashburn meet, sparks fly and hilarity ensues.
I went into this with low expectations, but also a deep loathing for Sandra Bullock as an actress — every role she’s ever played has been essentially the same. I expected the same in The Heat. In an oh-so-surprising twist of fate, she ended up playing the sober, strait-laced character! Despite my lack of appreciation for her acting skills, I must say she did well; her comedic timing was spot-on, and it meshed well with McCarthy’s usual brand of comedy: vociferous and physical, bordering on slapstick. I did note during the film that Bullock is definitely starting to show her age; this is not a knock on her beauty, but more an admission that I am starting to feel old!
Mullins also plays the same character in every movie role she takes, so this character was no stretch for her at all. It seems she is just there to memorize lines and provide her unabashed, high-energy quips. That said, I have to give her mad props for comedic timing and delivery. She is a one-trick-pony, but that one trick is a damn good one.
All in all, this is a great film for laughs. I laughed out loud through much of it, which was a surprise. As with all comedies, I don’t recommend spending your hard-earned cash on these top-dollar theater tickets. Wait for the small screen, but definitely see it for a good, healthy chuckle.
Word Chums
Games and Entertainment
5.0
Rate It
App
More fun than Words With Friends and more addicting than Scrabble, WORD CHUMS: the highest rated...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Father (2020) in Movies
Jun 12, 2021
Dementia twists the strands of Anthony’s personal multiverse
Anthony (Anthony Hopkins) is elderly and living in his flat. His daughter Anne (Olivia Colman) keeps dropping by to check he is OK. But is this right? Strange things keep happening to him, from losing his watch to having strange people turn up at the flat. For Anthony is battling against dementia, and reality and fantasy are not quite as distinct as they once were.
Positives:
- I was one of those disappointed that Chadwick Boseman didn’t posthumously win the Best Actor Oscar for “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”. But, boy oh boy, after seeing this I am fully supportive of the Academy’s position. Anthony Hopkins has delivered some astonishingly powerful performances during his career – from the tortured ventriloquist in “Magic”, to Hannibal Lector to the elderly pope in “The Two Popes”. But he really excels himself here, tapping both your emotions and your sympathies as the confused and terrified old man.
- The Oscar- and BAFTA-winning screenplay by Florian Zeller, based on his stage play, is devastating, subtly twisting the knife. It will be particularly telling/upsetting for those who are getting on in years and/or have/had elderly parents affected by dementia. I would personally not have included (being deliberately vague) the “Williams entry” scene in the trailer, since it is a jolt of a twist in the film. But there are so many other clever devices in the screenplay that you don’t see coming. The ending in particular is brutal on the emotions.
- The production design (an Oscar nomination for Peter Francis and Cathy Featherstone) is ingenious, as the set subtly and progressively transforms. Almost a ‘spot the difference’ in movie form.
- The score by Ludovico Einaudi uses atonal strings to great effect, as Anthony’s reality keeps shifting from under him.
Negatives:
- I’ve nothing here, hence my 10-bomb rating. I’ve seen some reviews that have thought that the movie was too “stagey” (which is a criticism I have levelled before at a bunch of “stage to screen” adaptations such as “Fences” and – more recently – “One Night in Miami” and “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom“). But I really didn’t feel that way about “The Father”. The claustrophobic nature of the plot was well served I thought by the (largely) single set location.
Summary Thoughts on “The Father”: Dementia is a cruel and heartless disease that robs any affected elderly person of their memories, logic and – ultimately – their dignity. I thought the movie was extremely clever in reflecting this decline, anchored by the astonishing career-best performance from Sir Anthony Hopkins. But this in turns makes this a very hard watch indeed!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies post here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/12/the-father-dementia-twists-the-strands-of-anthonys-personal-multiverse/ . Thanks.
Positives:
- I was one of those disappointed that Chadwick Boseman didn’t posthumously win the Best Actor Oscar for “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”. But, boy oh boy, after seeing this I am fully supportive of the Academy’s position. Anthony Hopkins has delivered some astonishingly powerful performances during his career – from the tortured ventriloquist in “Magic”, to Hannibal Lector to the elderly pope in “The Two Popes”. But he really excels himself here, tapping both your emotions and your sympathies as the confused and terrified old man.
- The Oscar- and BAFTA-winning screenplay by Florian Zeller, based on his stage play, is devastating, subtly twisting the knife. It will be particularly telling/upsetting for those who are getting on in years and/or have/had elderly parents affected by dementia. I would personally not have included (being deliberately vague) the “Williams entry” scene in the trailer, since it is a jolt of a twist in the film. But there are so many other clever devices in the screenplay that you don’t see coming. The ending in particular is brutal on the emotions.
- The production design (an Oscar nomination for Peter Francis and Cathy Featherstone) is ingenious, as the set subtly and progressively transforms. Almost a ‘spot the difference’ in movie form.
- The score by Ludovico Einaudi uses atonal strings to great effect, as Anthony’s reality keeps shifting from under him.
Negatives:
- I’ve nothing here, hence my 10-bomb rating. I’ve seen some reviews that have thought that the movie was too “stagey” (which is a criticism I have levelled before at a bunch of “stage to screen” adaptations such as “Fences” and – more recently – “One Night in Miami” and “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom“). But I really didn’t feel that way about “The Father”. The claustrophobic nature of the plot was well served I thought by the (largely) single set location.
Summary Thoughts on “The Father”: Dementia is a cruel and heartless disease that robs any affected elderly person of their memories, logic and – ultimately – their dignity. I thought the movie was extremely clever in reflecting this decline, anchored by the astonishing career-best performance from Sir Anthony Hopkins. But this in turns makes this a very hard watch indeed!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies post here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/12/the-father-dementia-twists-the-strands-of-anthonys-personal-multiverse/ . Thanks.
Radio - Stream Live Radio - New Zealand Radio Stations For Free
Music and Entertainment
7.0
Rate It
App
You can listen almost all New Zealand Radios in the app. Radio New Zealand for iPhone/iPad allows...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Red Notice (2021) in Movies
Nov 19, 2021
Good (enough) Entertainment for the Entire Family
Around the Holidays, I always get asked to recommend a film “Good for the Entire Family”, something that the kids as well as the adults - including Gramma and Grampa - can enjoy.
For Thanksgiving, 2021 (and beyond) the answer is simple - look no further than the Netflix film RED NOTICE starring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Gal Gadot and Ryan Reynolds.
Written and Directed by frequent “The Rock” collaborator, Rawson Marshall Thurber, RED NOTICE pits the 3 stars each other as Master Thieves and the Law Enforcement Agent that is chasing them. It is a light-hearted, fun, action, adventure treasure hunt film reminiscent of the Nicholas Cage NATIONAL TREASURE movies.
Don’t be expecting hard-hitting, gritty action in this one. Instead, expect light-hearted action with fast banter, faster cars and bullets that - to no one’s surprise - fails to land in any human being. Automobiles, equipment and buildings are destroyed - but humans…? Not so much. They just pick themselves up, dust themselves off and start all over again.
The acting in this is “as expected”. The Rock is tough, muscular and charming. Ryan Reynolds is fast-talking, conniving and charming. Gal Gadot is mysterious, tougher-than-she-looks and charming. They play off together well and add a little higher level of quality to this film than it probably deserves.
That’s because the script, plot machinations, twists, turns, double-crosses and banter are all pretty much run-of-the-mill. It is not anything special, but nor is it bad. It is “fine” and with these 3 talented performers at the forefront of this, it lifts itself to “better than fine”, it’s a good family film that all can enjoy.
The Direction and Action sequences by Thurber are just as pedestrian and run-of-the-mill but just as entertaining none-the-less. I think the charm of this film is it’s predictability. It’s like putting on an old pair of sweatpants. Your’e not going to wear them to the Oscars, but for sitting on the couch after a full family dinner on Thanksgiving, it fills the bill very well.
The film is light enough for kids (though they do drop the “f-bomb” once or twice). It’s just edgy enough for tweens/teens (hence the “f-bombs”) and a rollicking good time for the adults with enough self-awareness of what they are doing that the actors (first and foremost Reynolds) almost looks like they are going to address the camera to comment on what’s going on at any moment.
And that, too, is part of it’s charm.
Letter Grade A- (it’s probably a B+, but since it is my answer for “Family Film of the Holidays”, I’ll give it an A-).
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
For Thanksgiving, 2021 (and beyond) the answer is simple - look no further than the Netflix film RED NOTICE starring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Gal Gadot and Ryan Reynolds.
Written and Directed by frequent “The Rock” collaborator, Rawson Marshall Thurber, RED NOTICE pits the 3 stars each other as Master Thieves and the Law Enforcement Agent that is chasing them. It is a light-hearted, fun, action, adventure treasure hunt film reminiscent of the Nicholas Cage NATIONAL TREASURE movies.
Don’t be expecting hard-hitting, gritty action in this one. Instead, expect light-hearted action with fast banter, faster cars and bullets that - to no one’s surprise - fails to land in any human being. Automobiles, equipment and buildings are destroyed - but humans…? Not so much. They just pick themselves up, dust themselves off and start all over again.
The acting in this is “as expected”. The Rock is tough, muscular and charming. Ryan Reynolds is fast-talking, conniving and charming. Gal Gadot is mysterious, tougher-than-she-looks and charming. They play off together well and add a little higher level of quality to this film than it probably deserves.
That’s because the script, plot machinations, twists, turns, double-crosses and banter are all pretty much run-of-the-mill. It is not anything special, but nor is it bad. It is “fine” and with these 3 talented performers at the forefront of this, it lifts itself to “better than fine”, it’s a good family film that all can enjoy.
The Direction and Action sequences by Thurber are just as pedestrian and run-of-the-mill but just as entertaining none-the-less. I think the charm of this film is it’s predictability. It’s like putting on an old pair of sweatpants. Your’e not going to wear them to the Oscars, but for sitting on the couch after a full family dinner on Thanksgiving, it fills the bill very well.
The film is light enough for kids (though they do drop the “f-bomb” once or twice). It’s just edgy enough for tweens/teens (hence the “f-bombs”) and a rollicking good time for the adults with enough self-awareness of what they are doing that the actors (first and foremost Reynolds) almost looks like they are going to address the camera to comment on what’s going on at any moment.
And that, too, is part of it’s charm.
Letter Grade A- (it’s probably a B+, but since it is my answer for “Family Film of the Holidays”, I’ll give it an A-).
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Wild, creepy & a little stressful
When Joe Lynch and his young son, William, spot his wife's car while out driving, they decide to surprise her. Instead they see his wife, Melissa, fighting with a friend, Ben. Joe knows he should help Melissa, but when he goes to confront Ben, it goes horribly wrong. The two fight and after Ben hits him, Joe pushes him back and Ben falls and hits his head. At the same time, his son has an asthma attack--and realizing he doesn't have William's inhaler--Joe has to make a choice: race home for the inhaler or stay and make sure Ben is okay. He chooses his son, setting off a chain of crazy events that will forever alter the course of his life.
"I put the car in gear. Made a spur-of-the-moment decision that would change my life. 'Let's go and surprise Mummy.'"
This was an odd book that messes with your head as much as all the insane events seem to do to Joe's. It got off to a slow start for me, and I almost didn't keep reading, but I have a terrible time putting any book in a "DNF" pile, and of course, this one picked up and got pretty exciting about halfway through. (This only adds to my inability to ever not finish a book.)
The main shtick with this one is sort of an unreliable narrator/unreliable plot, as you really don't know who or what to believe as you read. Hence the title, obviously. As it all happens we have Joe, who sort of bumbles along, our hapless narrator, who seems to think he's in control, but really, just no. Poor guy, he's certainly not the brightest--just this clueless guy whom I had a tough time rooting for, hence my inability to really get into the book.
Yes, most of the cast of characters around him are lying to him in some fashion, but still. After Joe leaves Ben in the parking garage to save William, he finds some weird and cryptic posts on his Facebook page, because (of course) he lost his (unlocked) cell phone during his altercation with (obviously tech-savvy) Ben who runs (wait for it) a technology firm. Then Melissa reveals to him that the wealthy Ben has been pining after her for ages, despite that fact that Ben's wife, Beth, is Melissa's best friend. Things unravel from there. I'll admit that they don't necessarily happen predictably, but they do happen in a crazy fashion, so be prepared to suspend a lot of your disbelief.
The book is kind of wild, a little creepy, and there's a good twist at the end, which bumped my rating up a half bomb. This wasn't a particularly fun read for me--it sort of stressed me out--and I didn't really like any of the characters, but once it picked it up, it was at least interesting.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"I put the car in gear. Made a spur-of-the-moment decision that would change my life. 'Let's go and surprise Mummy.'"
This was an odd book that messes with your head as much as all the insane events seem to do to Joe's. It got off to a slow start for me, and I almost didn't keep reading, but I have a terrible time putting any book in a "DNF" pile, and of course, this one picked up and got pretty exciting about halfway through. (This only adds to my inability to ever not finish a book.)
The main shtick with this one is sort of an unreliable narrator/unreliable plot, as you really don't know who or what to believe as you read. Hence the title, obviously. As it all happens we have Joe, who sort of bumbles along, our hapless narrator, who seems to think he's in control, but really, just no. Poor guy, he's certainly not the brightest--just this clueless guy whom I had a tough time rooting for, hence my inability to really get into the book.
Yes, most of the cast of characters around him are lying to him in some fashion, but still. After Joe leaves Ben in the parking garage to save William, he finds some weird and cryptic posts on his Facebook page, because (of course) he lost his (unlocked) cell phone during his altercation with (obviously tech-savvy) Ben who runs (wait for it) a technology firm. Then Melissa reveals to him that the wealthy Ben has been pining after her for ages, despite that fact that Ben's wife, Beth, is Melissa's best friend. Things unravel from there. I'll admit that they don't necessarily happen predictably, but they do happen in a crazy fashion, so be prepared to suspend a lot of your disbelief.
The book is kind of wild, a little creepy, and there's a good twist at the end, which bumped my rating up a half bomb. This wasn't a particularly fun read for me--it sort of stressed me out--and I didn't really like any of the characters, but once it picked it up, it was at least interesting.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).