Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated My Week with Marilyn (2011) in Movies
Dec 30, 2019
Strong performance by Williams in a terrific film
According to my Letterboxd profile, I view (on average) 4.5 films/week. Only 1 or 2 of them in a week are at the theater. The rest, I stream (or pop in the DVD). I spare you (for the most part) my review of mediocre or just plain bad films that I see (case in point the recent A CHRISTMAS CAROL on FX starring Guy Pearce - only watch it if you've ever wanted to see Marley drop the F-bomb multiple times). But...every once in a while I catch up with a gem that compels me to write a review to inform you folks of a wonderful film you might have missed (or have forgotten about).
Such is the case with the 2011 film MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. the adaptation of Colin Clark's memoirs of working as an Assistant Director on the 1957 film THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL (which starred the unlikely pair of Sir Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe). As Directed by Simon Curtis (WOMAN IN GOLD) MWWM is a wonderful character study of a young man coming of age while watching the clash between the old school acting/working style of Olivier and "the method" of the new age of acting in the guise of Marilyn Monroe.
Eddie Redmayne (before he became the famous Oscar winning Actor for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING) is perfectly cast as the young Colin Clark. He has a naivete and longing to him that is ideal in this part. You watch him fall in love through the course of this film and you, the filmgoer, fall in love as well.
Bringing the strength and charisma to the screen as Olivier - as expected - is Kenneth Brannagh (MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS). He was often described as he was ascending in the British Theater world as "the next Olivier" and Brannagh captures his idol well. Giving light to the brilliance, arrogance and impatience of a celebrated actor, Brannagh was (rightfully) nominated for a Best Supporting Actor for his work and he shone whenever he was on the screen.
Which brings me to Michelle Williams Oscar nominated work as Marilyn Monroe. All I can say is...wow. She took on the aura and personae of this icon and I felt as if I was watching a real, troubled person with great charisma on the screen. Williams embodies Monroe both in personality and in physicality (Monroe was a tremendously good physical comedic actress) showing there is much, much more to this actress than the beautiful package that meets the eye. How Williams lost the Oscar to Meryl Streep's portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in THE IRON LADY (a performance I really liked) is beyond me.
It is important that both Brannagh and Redmayne hold their own in this film (and they do) for this performance by Williams could have easily swallowed up all around her - it is that good and powerful a performance. But Director Curtis and Brannagh and Redmayne (as well as wonderful supporting work by such great actors as Judi Dench, Toby Jones, Julia Ormond, Derek Jacoby, Dougray Scott, Emma Watson, Zoe Wannamaker and Dominic Cooper) strongly balance her work to give us, the audience, a pretty balanced portrait of this troubled production and this troubled person.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - but the deliberateness of the pace serves the story well. Colin falls in love with Marilyn (and Marilyn lets him fall in love with her) and we need the time and the space for those emotions to sink in.
If you are looking for a film that is a bit of an antidote to the usual CGI-Fest, SuperHero, Space films that are filling the multiplex, you will be well rewarded with MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. A loving, gentle film with strong performances - a type of film that is in short supply these days.
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN can be currently streamed on NETFLIX. You can also purchase/rent it on Amazon, Vudu, iTunes and YouTube.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the 2011 film MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. the adaptation of Colin Clark's memoirs of working as an Assistant Director on the 1957 film THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL (which starred the unlikely pair of Sir Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe). As Directed by Simon Curtis (WOMAN IN GOLD) MWWM is a wonderful character study of a young man coming of age while watching the clash between the old school acting/working style of Olivier and "the method" of the new age of acting in the guise of Marilyn Monroe.
Eddie Redmayne (before he became the famous Oscar winning Actor for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING) is perfectly cast as the young Colin Clark. He has a naivete and longing to him that is ideal in this part. You watch him fall in love through the course of this film and you, the filmgoer, fall in love as well.
Bringing the strength and charisma to the screen as Olivier - as expected - is Kenneth Brannagh (MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS). He was often described as he was ascending in the British Theater world as "the next Olivier" and Brannagh captures his idol well. Giving light to the brilliance, arrogance and impatience of a celebrated actor, Brannagh was (rightfully) nominated for a Best Supporting Actor for his work and he shone whenever he was on the screen.
Which brings me to Michelle Williams Oscar nominated work as Marilyn Monroe. All I can say is...wow. She took on the aura and personae of this icon and I felt as if I was watching a real, troubled person with great charisma on the screen. Williams embodies Monroe both in personality and in physicality (Monroe was a tremendously good physical comedic actress) showing there is much, much more to this actress than the beautiful package that meets the eye. How Williams lost the Oscar to Meryl Streep's portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in THE IRON LADY (a performance I really liked) is beyond me.
It is important that both Brannagh and Redmayne hold their own in this film (and they do) for this performance by Williams could have easily swallowed up all around her - it is that good and powerful a performance. But Director Curtis and Brannagh and Redmayne (as well as wonderful supporting work by such great actors as Judi Dench, Toby Jones, Julia Ormond, Derek Jacoby, Dougray Scott, Emma Watson, Zoe Wannamaker and Dominic Cooper) strongly balance her work to give us, the audience, a pretty balanced portrait of this troubled production and this troubled person.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - but the deliberateness of the pace serves the story well. Colin falls in love with Marilyn (and Marilyn lets him fall in love with her) and we need the time and the space for those emotions to sink in.
If you are looking for a film that is a bit of an antidote to the usual CGI-Fest, SuperHero, Space films that are filling the multiplex, you will be well rewarded with MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. A loving, gentle film with strong performances - a type of film that is in short supply these days.
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN can be currently streamed on NETFLIX. You can also purchase/rent it on Amazon, Vudu, iTunes and YouTube.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ross (3282 KP) rated Cold Iron (Masters & Mages #1) in Books
Jan 22, 2019
Elaborate prose and an unsettling amount of "wait and see" damaged my enjoyment
This book feels like your standard coming-of-age fantasy - young man from a simple village finds himself in the big city destined for greatness and surrounds himself with strong watchers while he grows into his potential. It is that and it is so much more.
The story that is told is how Aranthur, this young man (selected from his village to attend the big city university) finds himself in the midst of conflict and significant events in the empire's changing status. The idea of fate dictating that this one man would be at the centre of things (see Wheel of Time) is not one that is explored here. While it is hinted at (he is frequently told off for ending up in unusual circumstances), it isn't overly laboured. Nobody tells him he was chosen or anything like that. Instead he gradually learns that he has found himself at the centre of political intrigue, plotting, counter-plotting, conspiracies and war.
This book is not about Aranthur. He is just the focal point of the book, the story is so much bigger than him. This meant it did at times become a little hard to take that he always just happened to meet the right person, go to the right place at the right time in order to witness or participate in a number of significant plot events. In hindsight, this is largely all explained as some hidden agenda and him being put in those places to make those decisions but at the time it was a little jarring.
The narrative is more akin to Robert Jordan than many contemporary writers - so much overly elaborate description of people, places, clothes, horses, weapons etc. At times this adds to the reading experience but I found it over-used and made the book feel like a much longer read (I was shocked when I found out it was just under 450 pages - it reads like around 700). Also, so much of the narrative is in either italics (to show it is a magic/majick/magik delete as appropriate) or is in some odd variation of French ("gonne" for gun, "quaveh" for coffee etc) to become irritating. At times the book is more like a decent fantasy tale or conspiracy and intrigue which has been edited by a historical re-enactment nut. Given this is fictional and the world is the author's to do with as he wishes, forcing some historical accuracy at the expense of reader enjoyment seemed an odd decision to make.
The magical system seems fairly standard fantasy fayre, albeit it is not described or explored in any detail, people just suddenly do things which haven't previously been mentioned. A large aspect of the book is Aranthur's being chosen to translate an ancient text to decode the magical secrets hidden there. I think in all he decodes three of these, and uses them, but there is no mention of them until he has to use them in a fight. It could just be that I have been reading a lot of LitRPG recently, where every spell is described in intimate detail and its uses are discussed way in advance of being needed in combat, but I felt like it was something of an afterthought or rescue from a plot dead-end ("oh sod it, say he done a magic").
While I did enjoy this book on the whole, the narrative style and the focus being on clothes rather than describing the interesting aspects of the world were to its detriment. Also, the book is written as two "books" (chapters), the first "book" covers around 80% and all in one long chapter without breaks. To my mind, ending there would have sufficed. The final 20% in "book 2" felt like part epilogue, part sequel and should maybe have been split as such.
My advice to anyone reading this, is to suspend disbelief that little bit further and trust that things do largely get explained satisfactorily before the end.
The story that is told is how Aranthur, this young man (selected from his village to attend the big city university) finds himself in the midst of conflict and significant events in the empire's changing status. The idea of fate dictating that this one man would be at the centre of things (see Wheel of Time) is not one that is explored here. While it is hinted at (he is frequently told off for ending up in unusual circumstances), it isn't overly laboured. Nobody tells him he was chosen or anything like that. Instead he gradually learns that he has found himself at the centre of political intrigue, plotting, counter-plotting, conspiracies and war.
This book is not about Aranthur. He is just the focal point of the book, the story is so much bigger than him. This meant it did at times become a little hard to take that he always just happened to meet the right person, go to the right place at the right time in order to witness or participate in a number of significant plot events. In hindsight, this is largely all explained as some hidden agenda and him being put in those places to make those decisions but at the time it was a little jarring.
The narrative is more akin to Robert Jordan than many contemporary writers - so much overly elaborate description of people, places, clothes, horses, weapons etc. At times this adds to the reading experience but I found it over-used and made the book feel like a much longer read (I was shocked when I found out it was just under 450 pages - it reads like around 700). Also, so much of the narrative is in either italics (to show it is a magic/majick/magik delete as appropriate) or is in some odd variation of French ("gonne" for gun, "quaveh" for coffee etc) to become irritating. At times the book is more like a decent fantasy tale or conspiracy and intrigue which has been edited by a historical re-enactment nut. Given this is fictional and the world is the author's to do with as he wishes, forcing some historical accuracy at the expense of reader enjoyment seemed an odd decision to make.
The magical system seems fairly standard fantasy fayre, albeit it is not described or explored in any detail, people just suddenly do things which haven't previously been mentioned. A large aspect of the book is Aranthur's being chosen to translate an ancient text to decode the magical secrets hidden there. I think in all he decodes three of these, and uses them, but there is no mention of them until he has to use them in a fight. It could just be that I have been reading a lot of LitRPG recently, where every spell is described in intimate detail and its uses are discussed way in advance of being needed in combat, but I felt like it was something of an afterthought or rescue from a plot dead-end ("oh sod it, say he done a magic").
While I did enjoy this book on the whole, the narrative style and the focus being on clothes rather than describing the interesting aspects of the world were to its detriment. Also, the book is written as two "books" (chapters), the first "book" covers around 80% and all in one long chapter without breaks. To my mind, ending there would have sufficed. The final 20% in "book 2" felt like part epilogue, part sequel and should maybe have been split as such.
My advice to anyone reading this, is to suspend disbelief that little bit further and trust that things do largely get explained satisfactorily before the end.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Robert The Bruce (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: Robert the Bruce starts after William Wallace is defeated, Robert the Bruce (Macfadyen) and John Comyn (Harris) are fighting for control of Scotland, with John coming up the winner, Robert isn’t willing to take this defeat laying down, with his loyal soldiers James Douglas (Murtagh) planning to take Scotland back.
With Robert injured, Morag (Hutchison) and her family discover him, nursing him back to health despite being in a heavily Comyn control area, with Brandubh (McGowan) hunting down anyone who supporting Robert the Bruce, he must regain his strength to take his rightful place on the throne of Scotland.
Thoughts on Robert the Bruce
Characters – Robert the Bruce is the man that was crowned king of Scotland after the English were defeated, he wasn’t everybody’s first choice, which sees him needing to fight for his place on the throne, which sees him being left for dead, while his opposition takes control of the land, eliminating anybody who supports him. John Comyn is the other man that believes he could be king of Scotland, he has taken control in the battle against Robert, which sees him continuing to use the connections with English, much to anger of the Scots. Morag is the single mother that saw her husband killed fighting for Robert, she must raise her children believing John is the rightful ruler, either if her stories tell of Robert’s bravery. Brandubh is related to Morag, he is willing to kill anybody that doesn’t fight for his own country, which sees him trying to hunt down Robert the Bruce.
Performances – Angus Macfadyen reprises his former role of Robert the Bruce, one he played in Braveheart, he brings us a wise leader performance through the film. Jared Harris might have a supporting role, but after this year, you want to pause and watch any scene this man is in. Anna Hutchison does bring us a stronger performance than you would expect from her, with her getting to show that she can handle a serious role. Zach McGowan does a lot of the heavy lifting in this film, he is the one that gets to handle the most action through the film, with him being the villain for large parts of the film which otherwise would involve less action.
Story – The story here follows Robert the Bruce who became of the King of Scotland in the aftermath of the William Wallace battles against the English. Now this is set up to be some what of a sequel to Braveheart, which it is only in continuing a story, not in film story. we do play into the idea of how Scotland was left in the unknown after the battle, with two people fighting for the leadership, with the people left divided and calm required to make the land complete once again. The pacing of the story does come off slow in places which doesn’t help because, it is mostly a mother trying to prove to her children who should be king, and who they should tell people they respect more to remain safe. If you know your history the end of the film isn’t going to be a mystery to you and it does feel like there could have been a bigger impact with certain things that happen in this story.
History – This is a history lesson to the people that wanted to know more historic accuracy behind Scotland’s independence from England, unlike what Braveheart did.
Settings – The film does make us feel like we are in part of Scotland, we get to see how the condition made the events of the film difficult for the men fighting for the rightful cause.
Scene of the Movie – The crown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is about 30 minutes too long for everything that is told in this story.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting look at the history of Robert the Bruce and his rise to become king of Scotland, seeing how he overcame odds to take his place on the throne. Everything is acted well, never looking out of place.
Overall: History lesson.
With Robert injured, Morag (Hutchison) and her family discover him, nursing him back to health despite being in a heavily Comyn control area, with Brandubh (McGowan) hunting down anyone who supporting Robert the Bruce, he must regain his strength to take his rightful place on the throne of Scotland.
Thoughts on Robert the Bruce
Characters – Robert the Bruce is the man that was crowned king of Scotland after the English were defeated, he wasn’t everybody’s first choice, which sees him needing to fight for his place on the throne, which sees him being left for dead, while his opposition takes control of the land, eliminating anybody who supports him. John Comyn is the other man that believes he could be king of Scotland, he has taken control in the battle against Robert, which sees him continuing to use the connections with English, much to anger of the Scots. Morag is the single mother that saw her husband killed fighting for Robert, she must raise her children believing John is the rightful ruler, either if her stories tell of Robert’s bravery. Brandubh is related to Morag, he is willing to kill anybody that doesn’t fight for his own country, which sees him trying to hunt down Robert the Bruce.
Performances – Angus Macfadyen reprises his former role of Robert the Bruce, one he played in Braveheart, he brings us a wise leader performance through the film. Jared Harris might have a supporting role, but after this year, you want to pause and watch any scene this man is in. Anna Hutchison does bring us a stronger performance than you would expect from her, with her getting to show that she can handle a serious role. Zach McGowan does a lot of the heavy lifting in this film, he is the one that gets to handle the most action through the film, with him being the villain for large parts of the film which otherwise would involve less action.
Story – The story here follows Robert the Bruce who became of the King of Scotland in the aftermath of the William Wallace battles against the English. Now this is set up to be some what of a sequel to Braveheart, which it is only in continuing a story, not in film story. we do play into the idea of how Scotland was left in the unknown after the battle, with two people fighting for the leadership, with the people left divided and calm required to make the land complete once again. The pacing of the story does come off slow in places which doesn’t help because, it is mostly a mother trying to prove to her children who should be king, and who they should tell people they respect more to remain safe. If you know your history the end of the film isn’t going to be a mystery to you and it does feel like there could have been a bigger impact with certain things that happen in this story.
History – This is a history lesson to the people that wanted to know more historic accuracy behind Scotland’s independence from England, unlike what Braveheart did.
Settings – The film does make us feel like we are in part of Scotland, we get to see how the condition made the events of the film difficult for the men fighting for the rightful cause.
Scene of the Movie – The crown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is about 30 minutes too long for everything that is told in this story.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting look at the history of Robert the Bruce and his rise to become king of Scotland, seeing how he overcame odds to take his place on the throne. Everything is acted well, never looking out of place.
Overall: History lesson.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Nightingale (2018) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
Verdict: Shocking & Intense
Story: The Nightingale starts as an Irish convict Clare (Franciosi) is forced to work under British Officer Hawkins (Claflin) to pay off her debts, which usually involves cleaning and performing a song to the soldiers, until one day he goes too far by raping her, Clare is desperate to get out of her debt, to which she has paid off, but Hawkins won’t release her.
Confronting Hawkins with her husband Aidan (Sheasby), it leads to Hawkins not getting his promotion and Hawkins makings Clare pay with his men Ruse (Herriman) and Jago (Greenwood). Left completely broken Clare is put in contact with aboriginal tracker Billy (Ganambarr), as she goes in search for revenge on the men that took everything from him.
Thoughts on The Nightingale
Characters – Clare is an Irish convict, she has been released from jail to work off her time cleaning and using her beautiful singing voice to entertain the soldiers. She is coping with her time until Hawkins refuses her chance to have her freedom, being subjected to violence from the soldiers, with nothing left she is hellbent on revenge and isn’t in this journey to make any friends or want anybody’s sympathy, she just wants blood. Billy is an aboriginal tracker that reluctantly agrees to help Clare on her journey, he doesn’t want trouble, he is tired of how the white man has treated his kind, believing at first that Clare is just like the rest, until he learns the truth. The two have some true heart to heart moments as well as having moments which will give you a laugh too. Hawkins is a English officer that believes he should be given a promotion to a vacant captain role, he can’t control his soldiers and his aggression sees him leaving bodies in his path, making him have enemies coming from all directions, as he looks to arrive for his latest position. Ruse and Jago are the two soldiers that are also involved in the attack on Clare and her family, they are just as cowardly as Hawkins.
Performances – Aisling Franciosi gives us one of the most grounded and exceptional performances of recent years, she shows us the pure vengeance her character is going through, right next to the grief she would have experienced. Sam Claflin brings us one of the most horrendous humans to life with his performance, one that will leave almost wanting to hate the actors for his performance being so horrid. Baykali Ganambarr is wonderful too showing us the pain that a generation of people would have suffered through during the events of the film.
Story – The story here follows a young woman that sees everything taken from her in an act of violence by military men and seeks her own form of revenge. Where this story steps up comes from breaking certain traditions, while the opening actions are always going to be hard to watch and give the motivation required for Clare determination for revenge. Once we get on the war path, this isn’t a calm calculated plan for revenge like we have seen before, this is a cold complete emptiness reaction to the horrors she experiences with her journey being the only time she properly starts to grieve what she has been through. This is a new level of revenge movie that isn’t just revenge on this one action, it feels like a moment that wants to show the people that the white English soldiers walked all over. Wonderful story telling throughout.
Thriller – This is a tense thriller that shows the path of revenge that one lady and her tracker go on after being wronged by acts of violence by English soldiers.
Settings – The film uses the settings amazingly to show the world that Clare goes into and how the trackers are the only way to get through the outback in Tasmanian wilderness safely.
Scene of the Movie – The last song.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The English Soldiers.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best revenge films you will see, it has a different style to anything you have seen before with performances that are true heavyweight ones.
Overall: Brilliant.
Story: The Nightingale starts as an Irish convict Clare (Franciosi) is forced to work under British Officer Hawkins (Claflin) to pay off her debts, which usually involves cleaning and performing a song to the soldiers, until one day he goes too far by raping her, Clare is desperate to get out of her debt, to which she has paid off, but Hawkins won’t release her.
Confronting Hawkins with her husband Aidan (Sheasby), it leads to Hawkins not getting his promotion and Hawkins makings Clare pay with his men Ruse (Herriman) and Jago (Greenwood). Left completely broken Clare is put in contact with aboriginal tracker Billy (Ganambarr), as she goes in search for revenge on the men that took everything from him.
Thoughts on The Nightingale
Characters – Clare is an Irish convict, she has been released from jail to work off her time cleaning and using her beautiful singing voice to entertain the soldiers. She is coping with her time until Hawkins refuses her chance to have her freedom, being subjected to violence from the soldiers, with nothing left she is hellbent on revenge and isn’t in this journey to make any friends or want anybody’s sympathy, she just wants blood. Billy is an aboriginal tracker that reluctantly agrees to help Clare on her journey, he doesn’t want trouble, he is tired of how the white man has treated his kind, believing at first that Clare is just like the rest, until he learns the truth. The two have some true heart to heart moments as well as having moments which will give you a laugh too. Hawkins is a English officer that believes he should be given a promotion to a vacant captain role, he can’t control his soldiers and his aggression sees him leaving bodies in his path, making him have enemies coming from all directions, as he looks to arrive for his latest position. Ruse and Jago are the two soldiers that are also involved in the attack on Clare and her family, they are just as cowardly as Hawkins.
Performances – Aisling Franciosi gives us one of the most grounded and exceptional performances of recent years, she shows us the pure vengeance her character is going through, right next to the grief she would have experienced. Sam Claflin brings us one of the most horrendous humans to life with his performance, one that will leave almost wanting to hate the actors for his performance being so horrid. Baykali Ganambarr is wonderful too showing us the pain that a generation of people would have suffered through during the events of the film.
Story – The story here follows a young woman that sees everything taken from her in an act of violence by military men and seeks her own form of revenge. Where this story steps up comes from breaking certain traditions, while the opening actions are always going to be hard to watch and give the motivation required for Clare determination for revenge. Once we get on the war path, this isn’t a calm calculated plan for revenge like we have seen before, this is a cold complete emptiness reaction to the horrors she experiences with her journey being the only time she properly starts to grieve what she has been through. This is a new level of revenge movie that isn’t just revenge on this one action, it feels like a moment that wants to show the people that the white English soldiers walked all over. Wonderful story telling throughout.
Thriller – This is a tense thriller that shows the path of revenge that one lady and her tracker go on after being wronged by acts of violence by English soldiers.
Settings – The film uses the settings amazingly to show the world that Clare goes into and how the trackers are the only way to get through the outback in Tasmanian wilderness safely.
Scene of the Movie – The last song.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The English Soldiers.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best revenge films you will see, it has a different style to anything you have seen before with performances that are true heavyweight ones.
Overall: Brilliant.
Duas of Prophet (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ( Islam Quran Hadith - Ramadan Islamic Apps ) )
Book and Education
App
Al-Khawarizmi is a trusted name in Islamic Apps development for years. We have sold thousands of...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Seven (1995) in Movies
Nov 18, 2020
A timeless crime thriller
Film #2 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Se7en
Se7en (1995) is directed by David Fincher and stars Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, as two detectives investigating a serial killer murdering people according to the seven deadly sins. From the very beginning we are plunged into the dark, gritty and nameless city home to almost retired Detective Somerset (Freeman) and new transfer Detective Mills (Pitt). It’s a grim and grey landscape with seemingly never ending rain and some rather dark and disturbing murders to match. The cinematography in this is superb. Fincher has created an almost film noir style crime thriller with an edgy yet stylish look and feel that completely encompasses the subject matter perfectly. It’s the bizarre incongruences, like Somerset using a typewriter while the rest of the precinct use computers, or the almost complete lack of cultural references, that give this a timeless stylised feel.
And the subject matter itself sounds, on the surface, like a by the book detective story. But Se7en is much more than your average run of the mill thriller. Yes the two lead characters Mills and Somerset are the typical cops you’d find in any police movie: headstrong impulsive young gun versus wizened sensible and rational senior. But the performances from Freeman and Pitt are top notch, I’d even go so far as saying career best, and this paired with a clever script and a fairly horrifying plot that being this into the territory of one of the best detective movies ever made. The amount of quotable lines in the movie is surprising – any crime film that can include the line “Just because the fucker’s got a library card doesn’t make him Yoda” is on to a winner.
The central focus on the seven deadly sins simply adds to the intrigue and general intelligence of this as well. Regardless of your beliefs or background, it’s unlikely that there are many who haven’t heard of the seven deadly sins, and using these to murder people in rather horrific ways really enhances the threat and tension. Especially as the killer begins to leave hidden clues and hints in the hopes the detectives are smart enough to find them, which takes us as the viewer along for a rather interesting ride.
This is, without a doubt, very dark and fairly graphic with it’s crime scene depictions but it never feels like it goes too far. It’s gruesome and bloody but without that feeling of horror and disgust that comes from films that go over the top (i.e. the Saw franchise). And it isn’t all doom and gloom either as Fincher easily works in some rather heartwarming scenes between Somerset, Mills and Mill’s wife Tracey (Gwyneth Paltrow), as well as some well placed laugh out loud moments that further enhance the realistic tone that the film is trying to betray.
However the standout and most memorable moment for Se7en comes during the last half an hour. For those that haven’t seen the film and don’t want spoilers, shame on you and you may want to read no further…. It’s the final scenes when John Doe hands himself in to the detectives and takes them on a road trip into the wilderness to reveal his last two victims. Kevin Spacey, who wasn’t credited in the films opening sequence, puts in a stellar performance as the unnerving and downright creepy serial killer, whose motives are deeply disturbing. You can’t take your eyes off him in this final act. Pair this with a (literally) killer twist that no-one, let alone the detectives who have been one step behind Doe this entire movie, sees coming and a chilling denouement that perfectly wraps up the final two sins.
Se7en is by far one of the best detective thrillers ever made. It’s a masterpiece in filmmaking from David Fincher and some of the best work Freeman, Spacey and Pitt have ever done. 25 years on and this film is a timeless classic.
Se7en (1995) is directed by David Fincher and stars Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, as two detectives investigating a serial killer murdering people according to the seven deadly sins. From the very beginning we are plunged into the dark, gritty and nameless city home to almost retired Detective Somerset (Freeman) and new transfer Detective Mills (Pitt). It’s a grim and grey landscape with seemingly never ending rain and some rather dark and disturbing murders to match. The cinematography in this is superb. Fincher has created an almost film noir style crime thriller with an edgy yet stylish look and feel that completely encompasses the subject matter perfectly. It’s the bizarre incongruences, like Somerset using a typewriter while the rest of the precinct use computers, or the almost complete lack of cultural references, that give this a timeless stylised feel.
And the subject matter itself sounds, on the surface, like a by the book detective story. But Se7en is much more than your average run of the mill thriller. Yes the two lead characters Mills and Somerset are the typical cops you’d find in any police movie: headstrong impulsive young gun versus wizened sensible and rational senior. But the performances from Freeman and Pitt are top notch, I’d even go so far as saying career best, and this paired with a clever script and a fairly horrifying plot that being this into the territory of one of the best detective movies ever made. The amount of quotable lines in the movie is surprising – any crime film that can include the line “Just because the fucker’s got a library card doesn’t make him Yoda” is on to a winner.
The central focus on the seven deadly sins simply adds to the intrigue and general intelligence of this as well. Regardless of your beliefs or background, it’s unlikely that there are many who haven’t heard of the seven deadly sins, and using these to murder people in rather horrific ways really enhances the threat and tension. Especially as the killer begins to leave hidden clues and hints in the hopes the detectives are smart enough to find them, which takes us as the viewer along for a rather interesting ride.
This is, without a doubt, very dark and fairly graphic with it’s crime scene depictions but it never feels like it goes too far. It’s gruesome and bloody but without that feeling of horror and disgust that comes from films that go over the top (i.e. the Saw franchise). And it isn’t all doom and gloom either as Fincher easily works in some rather heartwarming scenes between Somerset, Mills and Mill’s wife Tracey (Gwyneth Paltrow), as well as some well placed laugh out loud moments that further enhance the realistic tone that the film is trying to betray.
However the standout and most memorable moment for Se7en comes during the last half an hour. For those that haven’t seen the film and don’t want spoilers, shame on you and you may want to read no further…. It’s the final scenes when John Doe hands himself in to the detectives and takes them on a road trip into the wilderness to reveal his last two victims. Kevin Spacey, who wasn’t credited in the films opening sequence, puts in a stellar performance as the unnerving and downright creepy serial killer, whose motives are deeply disturbing. You can’t take your eyes off him in this final act. Pair this with a (literally) killer twist that no-one, let alone the detectives who have been one step behind Doe this entire movie, sees coming and a chilling denouement that perfectly wraps up the final two sins.
Se7en is by far one of the best detective thrillers ever made. It’s a masterpiece in filmmaking from David Fincher and some of the best work Freeman, Spacey and Pitt have ever done. 25 years on and this film is a timeless classic.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Jul 28, 2021
Cinematography and Sound Design - very Hitchcockian (1 more)
Concept and initial set-up of the movie
Dafter than the Dharma initiative.
"Old" is the latest from the gloriously inconsistent writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Will this be great Shyamalan (à la "The Sixth Sense") or dire Shyamalan (à la "The Last Airbender")? The answer, in my view, is somewhere in the middle. It's a curate's egg of a movie.
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Great writing (2 more)
Never slows down
Great characters
Of the few children's horror books out there, Neil Gaiman's 2002 short novel Coraline, is one of the must-read for that age group. When a young girl named Coraline, and her family move into a new house (one which shares its basement and attic with other tenets), she finds a locked door that leads to nowhere, but soon after the door opens to a house that mirrors her own, yet the people there are a little bit "different. "
The people here look like the people from the world on the other side of the door, but these people have big buttons for eyes, and some are younger than their counterparts, but the most odd are her "other" parents, who, in her world, don't spend very much time with Coraline, and these two buttoned-eyed parents pay so much attention to her that they want her to stay with them forever just so they can make her happy. Coraline even meets a talking black cat, but the cat tells her it was smart to bring protection to this world (a stone with a hole in it that was given to her in the other world by two older lady tenets); this makes Coraline wonder why she would need protection in such a great place like this.
But for Coraline to stay in this world, her other mother and father tell her there is only one little thing she has to do to make that happen: " 'If you want to stay,' said her other father, 'there's only one little thing we'll have to do, so you can stay here for ever and always. '
They went to into the kitchen. On a china plate on the kitchen table was a spool of black cotton, and a long silver needle, and, beside them, two large black buttons. "
Coraline must allow her other parents to sew buttons over her eyes, but she adamantly refuses to allow them; her other parents don't argue with her, but rather bid her farewell, stating they'll see her again soon.
When Coraline returns to her normal world, she comes to realize that her parents are missing. Coraline now knows that the other parents will stop at nothing, including kidnapping her real parents, to get her to join them. Coraline goes back to the other world, demanding that the other parents give her real ones back. It's always that easy, right?
Wrong. Since the other parents are not willing to let Coraline go so easily, the other mother decides to play a game with Coraline, which is if she can find the souls of the other children this other mother has taken, she'll not only get to go home, but also get to take her real parents with her.
Fortunately, Coraline wasn't working alone in this game - - - remember the black cat? - - - she even has to face the 'other' counterparts of the tenets that live in the building. Since the movie of Coraline is still popular, most readers can guess what happens, but maybe not exactly how it happens.
Some readers may realize that the movie is quite different from the book. Most books are different from their film counterparts, but then you have books such as Stephen King's 'The Shining,' which are practically complete opposites of the movie. I don't believe that those, like myself, who watched the movie 'Coraline,' before reading the book will be disappointed by it, although there are quite a few differences throughout.
I have to end my review here because to tell you any more of the story would give away some of what makes Coraline such a great book. Which is not surprising coming from Neil Gaiman whose writing is always clear and concise, never slowing scenes down. Gaiman's children-age books are always flawless in both idea and writing.
Although this story is for ages 8 - 12, as an adult, I thoroughly enjoyed it! I highly recommend this book as a great way to introduce children to the horror genre, and to older people that like a good creepy story to read.
The people here look like the people from the world on the other side of the door, but these people have big buttons for eyes, and some are younger than their counterparts, but the most odd are her "other" parents, who, in her world, don't spend very much time with Coraline, and these two buttoned-eyed parents pay so much attention to her that they want her to stay with them forever just so they can make her happy. Coraline even meets a talking black cat, but the cat tells her it was smart to bring protection to this world (a stone with a hole in it that was given to her in the other world by two older lady tenets); this makes Coraline wonder why she would need protection in such a great place like this.
But for Coraline to stay in this world, her other mother and father tell her there is only one little thing she has to do to make that happen: " 'If you want to stay,' said her other father, 'there's only one little thing we'll have to do, so you can stay here for ever and always. '
They went to into the kitchen. On a china plate on the kitchen table was a spool of black cotton, and a long silver needle, and, beside them, two large black buttons. "
Coraline must allow her other parents to sew buttons over her eyes, but she adamantly refuses to allow them; her other parents don't argue with her, but rather bid her farewell, stating they'll see her again soon.
When Coraline returns to her normal world, she comes to realize that her parents are missing. Coraline now knows that the other parents will stop at nothing, including kidnapping her real parents, to get her to join them. Coraline goes back to the other world, demanding that the other parents give her real ones back. It's always that easy, right?
Wrong. Since the other parents are not willing to let Coraline go so easily, the other mother decides to play a game with Coraline, which is if she can find the souls of the other children this other mother has taken, she'll not only get to go home, but also get to take her real parents with her.
Fortunately, Coraline wasn't working alone in this game - - - remember the black cat? - - - she even has to face the 'other' counterparts of the tenets that live in the building. Since the movie of Coraline is still popular, most readers can guess what happens, but maybe not exactly how it happens.
Some readers may realize that the movie is quite different from the book. Most books are different from their film counterparts, but then you have books such as Stephen King's 'The Shining,' which are practically complete opposites of the movie. I don't believe that those, like myself, who watched the movie 'Coraline,' before reading the book will be disappointed by it, although there are quite a few differences throughout.
I have to end my review here because to tell you any more of the story would give away some of what makes Coraline such a great book. Which is not surprising coming from Neil Gaiman whose writing is always clear and concise, never slowing scenes down. Gaiman's children-age books are always flawless in both idea and writing.
Although this story is for ages 8 - 12, as an adult, I thoroughly enjoyed it! I highly recommend this book as a great way to introduce children to the horror genre, and to older people that like a good creepy story to read.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Superman: Action Comics - The Oz Effect in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I passed on "The Oz Effect" when it first ran in ACTION COMICS back in 2017. The whole "Rebirth" thing intrigued me, but some of the stuff like the Flash/Batman crossover "The Button", just left me cold and bordering on disinterest. When I saw the identity reveal as to the story arc's antagonist, I felt frustrated and disappointing, feeling like "#Facepalm Didn't we do something like this already?!".
Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!
The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.
The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!
Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!
As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!
The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!
What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.
This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.
So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!
I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.
Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!
The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.
The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!
Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!
As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!
The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!
What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.
This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.
So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!
I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.