Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nobody (2021) in Movies
Apr 27, 2021
A Fun Romp
Any fan of one of the greatest TV series of all-time, BREAKING BAD, or it’s spin-off, BETTER CALL SAUL, know the acting chops that Bob Odenkirk brings to the role of slimey, billboard lawyer Saul Goodman. His fast-talking, fast-thinking con-man is a character for the ages.
So, naturally, one would think “action star”.
But, darn it, if it doesn’t work.
Playing a retired undercover agent with a “certain set of skills”, NOBODY follows “Hutch” Mansell as he gets pulled back into using those skills when he helps a young woman who is being harassed on a bus, only to find out the thugs he went against are connected to the Russian Mob.
You can pretty much fill in the blanks from there. This film does not really tread any new ground…but…gosh…it was a fun watch.
Playing a more comedic hero than Liam Neeson in the TAKEN movies or Keanu Reeves’ JOHN WICK, Odenkirk, nonetheless, pulls off the “action hero” qualities just fine and is a winning enough presence on the screen that he holds your attention.
Christopher Lloyd (yes, Doc Brown from BACK TO THE FUTURE) is along for the ride as Odenkirk’s father, who gets pulled into the action when the Russian Mobsters decide to go after Hutch’s family and he looks like he is having a ball with this role.
The rest of the cast is pretty by-the-book (though a special shoutout needs to go to 1980’s heavy, Michael Ironside, who has a short role in this film - I would have loved to have seen more of him). The head Russian mobster is a bit over-the-top for my tastes, but the action sequences more than make up for all of this.
Credit for that must be given to Director Ilya Naishuller (HARDCORE HENRY) for he gives this film a unique look in the fight scenes while constantly having his tongue placed firmly in his cheek. I’ve seen ALOT of action films, so when a film brings something unique and fun to the screen, I sit up and notice.
And, notice I did. For NOBODY is a fun, popcorn flick. One that will be entertaining for the 92 minutes you watch.
Just don’t expect to see it during Awards season next year.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So, naturally, one would think “action star”.
But, darn it, if it doesn’t work.
Playing a retired undercover agent with a “certain set of skills”, NOBODY follows “Hutch” Mansell as he gets pulled back into using those skills when he helps a young woman who is being harassed on a bus, only to find out the thugs he went against are connected to the Russian Mob.
You can pretty much fill in the blanks from there. This film does not really tread any new ground…but…gosh…it was a fun watch.
Playing a more comedic hero than Liam Neeson in the TAKEN movies or Keanu Reeves’ JOHN WICK, Odenkirk, nonetheless, pulls off the “action hero” qualities just fine and is a winning enough presence on the screen that he holds your attention.
Christopher Lloyd (yes, Doc Brown from BACK TO THE FUTURE) is along for the ride as Odenkirk’s father, who gets pulled into the action when the Russian Mobsters decide to go after Hutch’s family and he looks like he is having a ball with this role.
The rest of the cast is pretty by-the-book (though a special shoutout needs to go to 1980’s heavy, Michael Ironside, who has a short role in this film - I would have loved to have seen more of him). The head Russian mobster is a bit over-the-top for my tastes, but the action sequences more than make up for all of this.
Credit for that must be given to Director Ilya Naishuller (HARDCORE HENRY) for he gives this film a unique look in the fight scenes while constantly having his tongue placed firmly in his cheek. I’ve seen ALOT of action films, so when a film brings something unique and fun to the screen, I sit up and notice.
And, notice I did. For NOBODY is a fun, popcorn flick. One that will be entertaining for the 92 minutes you watch.
Just don’t expect to see it during Awards season next year.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
May 4, 2017
Action sequences (4 more)
Cast
Practical and CGI effects
Plot
Highest free fall performed by a stuntman in almost 35 years.
Apple of Eden (1 more)
Not as much Past sequences as I'd like
Nothing is True...
Okay, so I have been a huge fan of the Assassin's Creed franchise since the beginning and have enjoyed, at least to some extent for certain ones, all of the games that have been released thus far. I was so excited for this movie once I heard it was being made and spent the years waiting, worrying. Videogame Movies have had nothing but a bad rep throughout the many years and this was one I was hoping did not fail, or at least not be a failure for me.
To give an example of what I mean, the Prince of Persia film was one I actually really enjoyed but to the world it was a flop and people despise it and dread to talk about it. Yes it's not as great as it could have been but neverless I enjoy what they tried to do with it. This film is both similar and yet different for me, because I didn't enjoy what they tried to do, I enjoyed what they did.
Though many will disagree with me I would like to at least get my view of the film across so that other might understand how someone can enjoy the film. So here it goes;
First of all Michael Fassbender is brilliant as both Callum Lynch and Aguilar de Nerha. As Callum he brilliantly portrays the anger, confusion, intrigue and then of course the characters progression into his focus and his determination to fully understand what it means to be an Assassin, not just in the past but in the present. As Aguilar we watch as Fassbender portrays to us his ancestral character as a much more skilled individual. Someone you can tell has been through years of intense training, has been taught to focus his mind on the task at hand and to understand that nothing is more important than his mission. Even if that means that people, no matter how close they are to him, must not be mourned in death until the mission is complete.
Other cast members such as Jeremy Irons and Marion Cotillard, are brilliant in their roles as their characters each have their own goals, and both require Callum Lynch, so their interactions together are shown in very different ways, although both are sincere.
The action in this movie is brilliant and is almost very reminiscent of the games themselves (the later games in the series at least, since the combat becomes more evolved and fluent compared to the first game/s). The actions of the Assassins such as the air assassination, the free running, the leap of faith and others, are exactly what I wanted to see in this film. The best part about them is that they are practical effects. The cast are actually free running, they are actually fighting, and doing somersaults (with the help of stunt doubles of course) and my favourite, the leap of faith is actually performed using a crane and a crash mat, by British gymnast and free runner Damien Walters. He free falls from the crane lift at 125 feet in the air, and in 3 seconds, he lands on the crash mat. This is actually the highest free fall performed by a stuntman in almost 35 years.
The connections to the games are beautifully blended into this new and refreshing plot that we haven't seen before. Everything from the different Assassin Insignias, to the leap of faith, the weapons, Abstergo Industries, and of course the Piece of Eden, is everything the fans wanted and possibly more. They even included a version of the Bleeding Effect that we haven't seen the likes of before, which I adored.
Probably my only issue with this film is the Apple of Eden, simply because, unlike the game, it doesn't do anything, except glow. The look of it is beautiful, just like all the other props and clothing in this film. However, when the orb is activated, there's simply some lights thrust out of it but it doesn't do anything besides show some pretty lights. In the game it can control minds, even break them and kill, or make someone run away in fear. Besides that, I have no real important issues with the film. The plot is, to me at least, brilliant and whilst there are some minor nit picks here and there, I love this film enough to not let them bother me. I saw this film twice in the cinema and would have gone a third time if I had the chance. Sadly I was too busy.
If you're a fan of the game franchise I highly recommend you give this film a chance. If you don't like it, like most people, then that's fair enough, but as I say about most films such as this, and comic book movies, give them a chance...you never know, you just might like it.
To give an example of what I mean, the Prince of Persia film was one I actually really enjoyed but to the world it was a flop and people despise it and dread to talk about it. Yes it's not as great as it could have been but neverless I enjoy what they tried to do with it. This film is both similar and yet different for me, because I didn't enjoy what they tried to do, I enjoyed what they did.
Though many will disagree with me I would like to at least get my view of the film across so that other might understand how someone can enjoy the film. So here it goes;
First of all Michael Fassbender is brilliant as both Callum Lynch and Aguilar de Nerha. As Callum he brilliantly portrays the anger, confusion, intrigue and then of course the characters progression into his focus and his determination to fully understand what it means to be an Assassin, not just in the past but in the present. As Aguilar we watch as Fassbender portrays to us his ancestral character as a much more skilled individual. Someone you can tell has been through years of intense training, has been taught to focus his mind on the task at hand and to understand that nothing is more important than his mission. Even if that means that people, no matter how close they are to him, must not be mourned in death until the mission is complete.
Other cast members such as Jeremy Irons and Marion Cotillard, are brilliant in their roles as their characters each have their own goals, and both require Callum Lynch, so their interactions together are shown in very different ways, although both are sincere.
The action in this movie is brilliant and is almost very reminiscent of the games themselves (the later games in the series at least, since the combat becomes more evolved and fluent compared to the first game/s). The actions of the Assassins such as the air assassination, the free running, the leap of faith and others, are exactly what I wanted to see in this film. The best part about them is that they are practical effects. The cast are actually free running, they are actually fighting, and doing somersaults (with the help of stunt doubles of course) and my favourite, the leap of faith is actually performed using a crane and a crash mat, by British gymnast and free runner Damien Walters. He free falls from the crane lift at 125 feet in the air, and in 3 seconds, he lands on the crash mat. This is actually the highest free fall performed by a stuntman in almost 35 years.
The connections to the games are beautifully blended into this new and refreshing plot that we haven't seen before. Everything from the different Assassin Insignias, to the leap of faith, the weapons, Abstergo Industries, and of course the Piece of Eden, is everything the fans wanted and possibly more. They even included a version of the Bleeding Effect that we haven't seen the likes of before, which I adored.
Probably my only issue with this film is the Apple of Eden, simply because, unlike the game, it doesn't do anything, except glow. The look of it is beautiful, just like all the other props and clothing in this film. However, when the orb is activated, there's simply some lights thrust out of it but it doesn't do anything besides show some pretty lights. In the game it can control minds, even break them and kill, or make someone run away in fear. Besides that, I have no real important issues with the film. The plot is, to me at least, brilliant and whilst there are some minor nit picks here and there, I love this film enough to not let them bother me. I saw this film twice in the cinema and would have gone a third time if I had the chance. Sadly I was too busy.
If you're a fan of the game franchise I highly recommend you give this film a chance. If you don't like it, like most people, then that's fair enough, but as I say about most films such as this, and comic book movies, give them a chance...you never know, you just might like it.
Eleanor (1463 KP) rated The Green Mile in Books
Jun 4, 2019
Atmosphere (1 more)
Characters
A disturbing but beautiful book
I'd seen the film a long time ago so no surprises with the plot but wow was I surprised at how well written and captivating this book was.
Written as the memoir of former Prison Guard Paul Edgecombe we get a look into the life of Block E of the Cold Mountain Penitentiary which Paul is the head guard of in the 1930s. In what we would call death row today they call it the “Green Mile” due to the colour of the floor. We get a snapshot of the period on the block around the time of convicted child killer John Coffey coming onto the “Mile.”
Each part of the book has a bit from the present from as Paul is writing this memoir and these served as lovely little bridge to the next part of his story.
I've read quite a bit of King and enjoy a lot of his work with his well crafted stories, but I've never fallen head over heels for his writing....until now.
Very emotionally engaging King really pulls off a great atmosphere, characters and despite a supernatural element, a story that easily carries you along. Not often I cry reading a book but this one got me.
Written as the memoir of former Prison Guard Paul Edgecombe we get a look into the life of Block E of the Cold Mountain Penitentiary which Paul is the head guard of in the 1930s. In what we would call death row today they call it the “Green Mile” due to the colour of the floor. We get a snapshot of the period on the block around the time of convicted child killer John Coffey coming onto the “Mile.”
Each part of the book has a bit from the present from as Paul is writing this memoir and these served as lovely little bridge to the next part of his story.
I've read quite a bit of King and enjoy a lot of his work with his well crafted stories, but I've never fallen head over heels for his writing....until now.
Very emotionally engaging King really pulls off a great atmosphere, characters and despite a supernatural element, a story that easily carries you along. Not often I cry reading a book but this one got me.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Little Darlings in Books
Feb 3, 2019
I looked at Melanie Golding’s debut novel, Little Darlings, several times on NetGalley before I decided to click the read now button, and after spending the whole day reading it, I’m certainly glad I did. I’m not a mother myself, but Golding’s prose brings to life the very real concerns that any parent faces: the fear of losing their children. In this beautifully written book, readers are introduced to a deliciously dark fairytale, alongside the ultimate horror a parent can encounter.
Lauren Tranter is a new mother to beautiful twin boys. Cautious and brimming with worries common to becoming a parent, she finds herself quickly in a predicament: a woman has shown up at the maternity ward, demanding Lauren’s children in exchange for her own. When Lauren refuses, things quickly become murky and, when her children go missing at the park, her life is turned upside down.
I have a bit of a tumultuous relationship with a few of the characters in this book, and it’s a bit difficult to really nail down how I feel about them. For the most part, I absolutely adore Lauren–perhaps because I feel she’s portrayed exceptionally. Her husband, on the other hand, I can’t stand. Arrogant and self-centered, all Patrick seems to care about is himself. The detective, Jo Harper, falls squarely in between these two. Coming off as unlikable early on, she quickly finds her way into the reader’s heart with her go get ’em attitude. In part, it’s because of her noble desire to get to the bottom of things: to determine whether or not Lauren is mad, or if there might be some truth to what the new mother is saying.
Golding’s command of language lends a dark atmosphere to her novel. With excerpts from tales on changelings spaced throughout the book, she creates a deeply disturbing reality, where as a reader I found myself questioning everything. She simultaneously makes both sides of the plot’s story, that is Lauren’s side and the side conducting the investigation into the attempted abduction of her children, equally believable. I’m still asking questions, even after finishing the book. Oh, and the things uncovered toward the end of the book adds a delicious twist on top of Lauren’s plight.
Little Darlings is a wonderful read, and I read the majority of it in one sitting. It starts out a bit slowly, but once things begin picking up, Golding’s style drives the story forward at break-neck speed. After reading this, I was thrilled to discover it’s already been optioned for a film and I eagerly await its release. This book is definitely a must read for fans of psychological thrillers.
I’d like to thank NetGalley and Crooked Lane Books for providing me with a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Lauren Tranter is a new mother to beautiful twin boys. Cautious and brimming with worries common to becoming a parent, she finds herself quickly in a predicament: a woman has shown up at the maternity ward, demanding Lauren’s children in exchange for her own. When Lauren refuses, things quickly become murky and, when her children go missing at the park, her life is turned upside down.
I have a bit of a tumultuous relationship with a few of the characters in this book, and it’s a bit difficult to really nail down how I feel about them. For the most part, I absolutely adore Lauren–perhaps because I feel she’s portrayed exceptionally. Her husband, on the other hand, I can’t stand. Arrogant and self-centered, all Patrick seems to care about is himself. The detective, Jo Harper, falls squarely in between these two. Coming off as unlikable early on, she quickly finds her way into the reader’s heart with her go get ’em attitude. In part, it’s because of her noble desire to get to the bottom of things: to determine whether or not Lauren is mad, or if there might be some truth to what the new mother is saying.
Golding’s command of language lends a dark atmosphere to her novel. With excerpts from tales on changelings spaced throughout the book, she creates a deeply disturbing reality, where as a reader I found myself questioning everything. She simultaneously makes both sides of the plot’s story, that is Lauren’s side and the side conducting the investigation into the attempted abduction of her children, equally believable. I’m still asking questions, even after finishing the book. Oh, and the things uncovered toward the end of the book adds a delicious twist on top of Lauren’s plight.
Little Darlings is a wonderful read, and I read the majority of it in one sitting. It starts out a bit slowly, but once things begin picking up, Golding’s style drives the story forward at break-neck speed. After reading this, I was thrilled to discover it’s already been optioned for a film and I eagerly await its release. This book is definitely a must read for fans of psychological thrillers.
I’d like to thank NetGalley and Crooked Lane Books for providing me with a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2021
A little too slow and self-indulgent for my tastes
There is no denying that Edward Norton is a talented performer. Ever since he burst onto the scene with his Oscar nominated performance in PRIMAL FEAR, he has been a presence both on and off the screen as an Actor, Writer, Producer and Director.
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sean Farrell (9 KP) rated The Martian in Books
Mar 15, 2018
The idea of being stranded alone somewhere is certainly a terrifying one, and as such has been used countless times in literature (and film). Moving the location 140,000,000 miles from Earth adds a new twist to the tale though, and adds an increased sense of desperation. When astronaut Mark Watney finds himself trapped on Mars after an accident, he turns out to be more resilient and resourceful than many of us would, and goes about doing everything he can to ensure his survival and up his odds of rescue. Given that rescue is so far away, and the harsh Martian environment is so unforgiving, things don't always go his way. The series of setbacks he experiences keeps readers in suspense throughout the entire book. The story is told largely from the perspective of Mark dictating to his log, which gives it a casual tone, making Mark very likable, and keeping the technical bits easy to understand. As such, this is a fun read, that kept me on the edge of my seat. If the movie is anywhere near as good as the book, it should be one of the best of the year.
Eduardo Paolozzi
Book
Artist Eduardo Paolozzi (1924-2005) was a unique cultural figure. His varied yet instantly...
Architecture's Pretexts: Spaces of Translation
Book
The aim of this book is to expose readers to architecture's pretexts that include literary...
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2355 KP) rated A Batter of Life and Death in Books
Jan 15, 2021
Murderous Contest
It’s autumn, which means that tourist season is winding down in Ashland, Oregon. Fortunately, The Pastry Channel has come to town to film the newest season of Take the Cake. They’ve asked Jules Capshaw to use Torte’s kitchen as a location some of the contestants use to prepare their pastries. Then they ask Jules to be a last-minute contestant. She’s thrilled until she finds Chef Marco, one of the other contestants, dead before the first day of filming. Since she is part of the show, she can’t help but learn things about her fellow contestants. Can she figure out which one is a killer?
It’s been too long since I read the first book in the series, but I was quickly back in Jules’s world with this fun second in the series. The pacing was a bit off at times, but overall there is an enjoyable mystery with plenty of secrets for Jules to uncover. The suspects are good and do their part to keep us guessing. Jules has some personal stuff she is trying to work through, and I enjoyed seeing the growth in her here. This book really made me want to visit Ashland at some point in the future. We get seven recipes at the end for a wide variety of things. It’s easy to see why this series is so popular. I need to pick up the next soon.
It’s been too long since I read the first book in the series, but I was quickly back in Jules’s world with this fun second in the series. The pacing was a bit off at times, but overall there is an enjoyable mystery with plenty of secrets for Jules to uncover. The suspects are good and do their part to keep us guessing. Jules has some personal stuff she is trying to work through, and I enjoyed seeing the growth in her here. This book really made me want to visit Ashland at some point in the future. We get seven recipes at the end for a wide variety of things. It’s easy to see why this series is so popular. I need to pick up the next soon.