Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marnie (1964) in Movies
Nov 6, 2020
Mediocre Hitchcock - but still pretty good
Heading into 1964, Alfred Hitchcock was on quite a roll. He had just rolled out - in order, VERTIGO (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), PSYCHO (1960) and THE BIRDS (1963) and his anthology series ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS had made him into a household name throughout the world. So it was with great anticipation/expectation that the world awaited his next major motion picture.
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Gold Rush in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Author in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<b>Four Reasons to Read <i>Gold Rush</i> by Jennifer Comeaux</b>
I'm still lacking in my reviews, but now I'm playing with style to change things up a little. <i>Gold Rush</i> is the first book by Jennifer Comeaux I've read, and it's the first performance by Emily Stokes that I've listened to. Here's a list of reasons why you should consider giving <i>Gold Rush</i> a try.
<b>
</b> <b>Ice Skating!</b> - If you're looking for a book centered around ice skating, this book is for you. I've had an interest in reading Comeaux's books since I've found out they were about ice skaters, and it was amazing to read from an ice skater's perspective. Liza is also <i>extremely</i> passionate about ice skating
<b>Adorable Kids</b> - Stokes does an amazing job depicting the voice of a kid, and she makes the two in <i>Gold Rush</i> all the more adorable through her performance than it would be compared to the book version.
<b>Past Characters</b> - Fans of Comeaux will be absolutely delighted to know some of the main characters from her previous books will be making an appearance or even a critical role in Liza's journey to an Olympic medal.
<b>Sweetest Love Interest. Ever.</b> - Braedon is one of the most adorable and sweetest boys in the history of fictional boy land (there's a lot of them). He's completely understanding of Liza's priorities and commitments without any ifs, ands, or buts, and it's just one of the things in literature I love reading about.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-gold-rush-by-jennifer-comeaux/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<b>Four Reasons to Read <i>Gold Rush</i> by Jennifer Comeaux</b>
I'm still lacking in my reviews, but now I'm playing with style to change things up a little. <i>Gold Rush</i> is the first book by Jennifer Comeaux I've read, and it's the first performance by Emily Stokes that I've listened to. Here's a list of reasons why you should consider giving <i>Gold Rush</i> a try.
<b>
</b> <b>Ice Skating!</b> - If you're looking for a book centered around ice skating, this book is for you. I've had an interest in reading Comeaux's books since I've found out they were about ice skaters, and it was amazing to read from an ice skater's perspective. Liza is also <i>extremely</i> passionate about ice skating
<b>Adorable Kids</b> - Stokes does an amazing job depicting the voice of a kid, and she makes the two in <i>Gold Rush</i> all the more adorable through her performance than it would be compared to the book version.
<b>Past Characters</b> - Fans of Comeaux will be absolutely delighted to know some of the main characters from her previous books will be making an appearance or even a critical role in Liza's journey to an Olympic medal.
<b>Sweetest Love Interest. Ever.</b> - Braedon is one of the most adorable and sweetest boys in the history of fictional boy land (there's a lot of them). He's completely understanding of Liza's priorities and commitments without any ifs, ands, or buts, and it's just one of the things in literature I love reading about.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-gold-rush-by-jennifer-comeaux/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Mothergamer (1514 KP) rated The Witcher in TV
Dec 22, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
I do really like the show. The fact that Henry Cavill is a big fan of the Witcher books and games shows. He really got Geralt's signature growl and mannerisms down perfectly. I can see how season 1 could be confusing for people with the timelines switching back and forth, but the storytelling is very well done. Season 2 is also good with one exception. I can not stand episode 2 in the season because it completely destroyed the character of Eskel. I didn't even recognize him when they introduced him until Geralt said his name. Eskel in the books and games is referred to as a gentle giant. His demeanor in many ways is like Geralt to the point that many people think they're brothers. Eskel also has his own child of surprise in the books and has a critical role in the books and games. Eskel in episode 2 is vastly different. They basically murdered this character. Eskel in episode 2 is a rude boor, arrogant, and sexist. Then they go completely against Witcher lore and have Eskel infected by a Leshe, something that is not possible for Witchers because of the mutagens in their bodies. Then they kill him. I was stunned and very disappointed because for the showrunners to claim that they want fans of the books and games to like the show, this said the exact opposite. I know Henry Cavill can only do so much, but this was a very poor choice that the writers made completely changing a well known and loved character so drastically and then killing him off. If you lift episode 2 out, season 2 is great. It's the only episode that really doesn't fit in with the others. I really hope season 3 does better with the lore and that the writers actually do the research and learn about the Witcher lore and world.
Over the last year and a half I have been reviewing books and have become somewhat critical, I was wondering if I would ever read a 5 star book again. It didn’t take too long, I would have given Forbidden all the stars if I was allowed. The story of forbidden is heart wrenching and soul-destroying but also wonderful.
Forbidden is a about a dysfunctional family in turmoil. The father left years ago and the mother of 5 children is never home! She is either out getting drunk or with her new boyfriend. Maya and Lochan are the eldest of the 5 children and had to take it upon themselves to keep the family afloat and to make sure social services never find out. Forbidden is about the relationship between Maya and Lochan and how it becomes more than brotherly sisterly love. They know it’s wrong but it feels so right.
I loved this book with all my heart, from the start you get a feeling that Maya and Lochan are not normal brother and sister. They have this connection, it feels like they are the mother and father of the 3 little’s, the way they manage everything from cooking,shopping,homework etc etc. They have been put in this impossible situation due to their mothers neglect.
All the characters are amazing, I could feel the utter despair that Lochan was going through, how he was torn between his feelings and what was socially acceptable. He would do anything for all of his family, he was smart and caring. Stress, taking on a role as father and loving his sister takes a toll on his mental health and starts having panic attacks. Maya was a great character but she wasn’t as vigilant as Lochan.
My feels were all over the place with this book, there is a point in the book where I had to stop reading (This has never happened to me before) I didn’t know if I could go on, it was so intense! My heart was in my mouth! The love in this book didn’t feel wrong and it’s not romaticizing incest, it’s just these children were put in this situation and they were living the role of mother and father in every possible way.
I have never read a book about incest before, it was extremely well written and I manged to read it very quickly despite it being 432 pages long. The book is from dual perspective alternating from Lochan and Maya, so you get an idea of what about both of them are thinking and feeling. No stone was left unturned. I am usually wary about reading books that have a lot of hype surrounding them but this is worth all the hype and more. If you have not read this yet, then you need to grab yourself a copy you won’t regret it.
Has anyone read other works by Tabitha Sazuma, are they as good as Forbidden?
I rated this 5 out of 5 stars.
Forbidden is a about a dysfunctional family in turmoil. The father left years ago and the mother of 5 children is never home! She is either out getting drunk or with her new boyfriend. Maya and Lochan are the eldest of the 5 children and had to take it upon themselves to keep the family afloat and to make sure social services never find out. Forbidden is about the relationship between Maya and Lochan and how it becomes more than brotherly sisterly love. They know it’s wrong but it feels so right.
I loved this book with all my heart, from the start you get a feeling that Maya and Lochan are not normal brother and sister. They have this connection, it feels like they are the mother and father of the 3 little’s, the way they manage everything from cooking,shopping,homework etc etc. They have been put in this impossible situation due to their mothers neglect.
All the characters are amazing, I could feel the utter despair that Lochan was going through, how he was torn between his feelings and what was socially acceptable. He would do anything for all of his family, he was smart and caring. Stress, taking on a role as father and loving his sister takes a toll on his mental health and starts having panic attacks. Maya was a great character but she wasn’t as vigilant as Lochan.
My feels were all over the place with this book, there is a point in the book where I had to stop reading (This has never happened to me before) I didn’t know if I could go on, it was so intense! My heart was in my mouth! The love in this book didn’t feel wrong and it’s not romaticizing incest, it’s just these children were put in this situation and they were living the role of mother and father in every possible way.
I have never read a book about incest before, it was extremely well written and I manged to read it very quickly despite it being 432 pages long. The book is from dual perspective alternating from Lochan and Maya, so you get an idea of what about both of them are thinking and feeling. No stone was left unturned. I am usually wary about reading books that have a lot of hype surrounding them but this is worth all the hype and more. If you have not read this yet, then you need to grab yourself a copy you won’t regret it.
Has anyone read other works by Tabitha Sazuma, are they as good as Forbidden?
I rated this 5 out of 5 stars.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Fast & Furious (2009) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Back on track
The best way to describe Fast & Furious would be as a guilty pleasure. There's nothing to lend weight to this film as a great work, an Oscar contender or a movie worthy of critical acclaim, but there something about this, as there was with the first, The Fast And The Furious, back in 2001.
Rob Cohen has never been known for subtlety and his 2001 film was far from it, but even even though he had nothing to do with this, his stamp is well and truly on it. Fast & Furious is the fourth in this surprising successful franchise, and besides the fact that I liked the original in spite of the fact that I'm NOT a motor-head, I've avoided the intervening sequels, 2 fast, 2 Furious and Tokyo Drift, for one simple reason, besides the fact that just didn't fancy them.
No Vin Diesel. I'm not suggesting that Vin is the greatest actor in the Hollywood, nor should be treading the boards of the Royal Shakespeare Company anytime soon, but his blockhead with a heart of gold persona works for me. He's likable and suits this role down to a tee, as does his dimwitted surfer dude sidekick, Paul Walker.
Walker offers nothing significant to the film except for his relationship with Diesel. The pairing is enjoyable but little more, but isn't that the point of adrenalin films like this? This is about cars, women, cops and robbers, and great fun to boot. The tone of this movie is on par with Cohen's original and though I can't justifiably compare this to the sequels which I have never seen, I don't want too either. This is the sequel that 2 Fast should have been and I only hope that now they're back on track, that Fast & Furious 5 could be another romp worthy of a watch.
It's nice to see a franchise go off track and find its feet again after so many years and it is a testament to the original cast who, though only have a limited range, have clearly breathed life back into the franchise.
Rob Cohen has never been known for subtlety and his 2001 film was far from it, but even even though he had nothing to do with this, his stamp is well and truly on it. Fast & Furious is the fourth in this surprising successful franchise, and besides the fact that I liked the original in spite of the fact that I'm NOT a motor-head, I've avoided the intervening sequels, 2 fast, 2 Furious and Tokyo Drift, for one simple reason, besides the fact that just didn't fancy them.
No Vin Diesel. I'm not suggesting that Vin is the greatest actor in the Hollywood, nor should be treading the boards of the Royal Shakespeare Company anytime soon, but his blockhead with a heart of gold persona works for me. He's likable and suits this role down to a tee, as does his dimwitted surfer dude sidekick, Paul Walker.
Walker offers nothing significant to the film except for his relationship with Diesel. The pairing is enjoyable but little more, but isn't that the point of adrenalin films like this? This is about cars, women, cops and robbers, and great fun to boot. The tone of this movie is on par with Cohen's original and though I can't justifiably compare this to the sequels which I have never seen, I don't want too either. This is the sequel that 2 Fast should have been and I only hope that now they're back on track, that Fast & Furious 5 could be another romp worthy of a watch.
It's nice to see a franchise go off track and find its feet again after so many years and it is a testament to the original cast who, though only have a limited range, have clearly breathed life back into the franchise.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Insidious (2010) in Movies
May 12, 2018
I finally have access to all the Insidious films. Because of this, I’m in the process of re-watching the first two – something I haven’t done since their initial release. I watched the first of the films yesterday and my thoughts are a bit mixed on it. Don’t get me wrong – I like the movie, but I think it’s PG-13 rating held it back a bit.
Dalton (Ty Simpkins) is, undoubtedly, the central figure of the story. His role throughout much of the movie is to lay comatose in a bed whilst demons fight for possession of his body. He’s got two siblings, a brother named Foster (I think I got that right) and a sister named Cali. His parents, Renai (Rose Byrne) and Josh (Patrick Wilson) are the supposed doting parents – Josh on the other hand could benefit from an actor that’s a bit more invested in his role. I could feel him rolling his eyes between scenes, he was so unenthused.
The plot of Insidious is fairly straightforward, though there is at least one glaring continuity issue that we encounter. For the most part it’s pretty standard haunting and possession, but somehow halfway through the movie (okay, maybe a little later than that) two characters vanish completely. Foster and Cali, the entire time we’re dealing with the Further – another plane of existence – are nowhere to be found. No one’s worried about their safety, no one’s trying to protect them. They’re just… gone. Unless I missed something critical in which they were sent off to a friend’s house or something, then we’ve got a glaring plot hole that gives this film a bit of a blemish when it comes to its polish.
PG-13 is the rating given to a horror film whose goal is to make money. The whole reason it doesn’t cross that boundary is so that all the teenagers can go to the theatre without their parents for what they hope will be a good scare. I learned this the hard way when I had to walk out of the Prom Night remake because kids wouldn’t shut up. (As a result, I rarely go to see a movie that is PG-13.) In Insidious we see the affects of this in the severity of the “hauntings.” Even the demons are downplayed – there’s a distinct lack of violence in the film that one might expect when a powerful entity is trying to take hold of a kid’s body. Sure, we’ve got a few bloody handprints, a little bit of poltergeist-like activity, but that’s it. It’s most stuff you’d expect to see in a scary movie directed at children, with the addition of a few jump-scares that rely heavily on auditory senses.
Needless to say, there are far worse movies than Insidious out there and I still intend to watch the other films. I’m a bit indecisive on how I want to rate this – I enjoyed watching it up until things get a bit silly toward the end, where the Further is involved. At the same time, I don’t dislike the movie. That said, I’ve decided to go with a three out of five.
Dalton (Ty Simpkins) is, undoubtedly, the central figure of the story. His role throughout much of the movie is to lay comatose in a bed whilst demons fight for possession of his body. He’s got two siblings, a brother named Foster (I think I got that right) and a sister named Cali. His parents, Renai (Rose Byrne) and Josh (Patrick Wilson) are the supposed doting parents – Josh on the other hand could benefit from an actor that’s a bit more invested in his role. I could feel him rolling his eyes between scenes, he was so unenthused.
The plot of Insidious is fairly straightforward, though there is at least one glaring continuity issue that we encounter. For the most part it’s pretty standard haunting and possession, but somehow halfway through the movie (okay, maybe a little later than that) two characters vanish completely. Foster and Cali, the entire time we’re dealing with the Further – another plane of existence – are nowhere to be found. No one’s worried about their safety, no one’s trying to protect them. They’re just… gone. Unless I missed something critical in which they were sent off to a friend’s house or something, then we’ve got a glaring plot hole that gives this film a bit of a blemish when it comes to its polish.
PG-13 is the rating given to a horror film whose goal is to make money. The whole reason it doesn’t cross that boundary is so that all the teenagers can go to the theatre without their parents for what they hope will be a good scare. I learned this the hard way when I had to walk out of the Prom Night remake because kids wouldn’t shut up. (As a result, I rarely go to see a movie that is PG-13.) In Insidious we see the affects of this in the severity of the “hauntings.” Even the demons are downplayed – there’s a distinct lack of violence in the film that one might expect when a powerful entity is trying to take hold of a kid’s body. Sure, we’ve got a few bloody handprints, a little bit of poltergeist-like activity, but that’s it. It’s most stuff you’d expect to see in a scary movie directed at children, with the addition of a few jump-scares that rely heavily on auditory senses.
Needless to say, there are far worse movies than Insidious out there and I still intend to watch the other films. I’m a bit indecisive on how I want to rate this – I enjoyed watching it up until things get a bit silly toward the end, where the Further is involved. At the same time, I don’t dislike the movie. That said, I’ve decided to go with a three out of five.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Detective Pikachu is the long awaited live action movie of the beloved video game and animated tv show franchise. The video game has sold over 1.31 billion units, so this movie has a very established fan base that is excited for new content, but also critical when new product doesn’t meet their expectations.
Video game movies in general are typically VERY bad. So bad that any time I hear they are making a movie out of a video game I immediately cringe out of reflex. I’ve been permanently scarred by the likes of Tekken, Super Mario Bros and Mortal Kombat. When Tomb Raider is your benchmark for the best of the best you have reason to be afraid when they say that Detective Pikachu is coming to theaters.
But fear not! This movie is not perfect but it does entertain!
Detective Pikachu is played by the voice of Ryan Reynolds, which in case you didn’t know Pokemon typically do not talk, so this is unusual right off the bat. Pokemon basically just repeat their name over and over again with different voice inflections in order to convey mood or urgency. It’s not as annoying as it sounds; it’s typically adorable actually. Reynolds does an excellent PG impersonation of Deadpool as Pikachu in a comedic role as detective Pikachu and it works surprisingly well. His comic timing is so perfect and the jokes don’t come off as childish or boorish, it really flows and works perfectly in the movie.
Justice Smith plays the lead character role of Tim Goodman who is trying to solve the murder of his estranged father. Justice Smith is very likable and you root for him to beat the bad guy and get the girl (played by Kathryn Newton), which is all you really need in a summer action movie; you need to want the hero or heroine to win. Justice Smith does a great job and I could see them building a franchise around his character going forward.
The visuals are fantastic! Its great seeing the characters from the video game walking around full size like that on the big screen and they did not just do a few, the movie is crawling with them and I loved that.
The story is fairly standard and does follow a formula but it moves along at a good pace and at 1 hour and 44 minutes long it feels like it’s not too long or too short. There are jokes that only the adults will get, there are game characters that only hardcore fans will recognize, but this movie was made for as wide an audience as a video game movie could be. They were trying to make it accessible to all, and I think they accomplished that.
It’s a big budget buddy cop popcorn movie with a lot of action, some laughs, a very light and fluffy kid friendly side love story and great special effects. There was a plot hole or two but it was forgivable and too entertaining to ruin it. I highly recommend turning off your brain, grabbing some popcorn and just enjoying this movie. Not perfect, but very good and fun!
Video game movies in general are typically VERY bad. So bad that any time I hear they are making a movie out of a video game I immediately cringe out of reflex. I’ve been permanently scarred by the likes of Tekken, Super Mario Bros and Mortal Kombat. When Tomb Raider is your benchmark for the best of the best you have reason to be afraid when they say that Detective Pikachu is coming to theaters.
But fear not! This movie is not perfect but it does entertain!
Detective Pikachu is played by the voice of Ryan Reynolds, which in case you didn’t know Pokemon typically do not talk, so this is unusual right off the bat. Pokemon basically just repeat their name over and over again with different voice inflections in order to convey mood or urgency. It’s not as annoying as it sounds; it’s typically adorable actually. Reynolds does an excellent PG impersonation of Deadpool as Pikachu in a comedic role as detective Pikachu and it works surprisingly well. His comic timing is so perfect and the jokes don’t come off as childish or boorish, it really flows and works perfectly in the movie.
Justice Smith plays the lead character role of Tim Goodman who is trying to solve the murder of his estranged father. Justice Smith is very likable and you root for him to beat the bad guy and get the girl (played by Kathryn Newton), which is all you really need in a summer action movie; you need to want the hero or heroine to win. Justice Smith does a great job and I could see them building a franchise around his character going forward.
The visuals are fantastic! Its great seeing the characters from the video game walking around full size like that on the big screen and they did not just do a few, the movie is crawling with them and I loved that.
The story is fairly standard and does follow a formula but it moves along at a good pace and at 1 hour and 44 minutes long it feels like it’s not too long or too short. There are jokes that only the adults will get, there are game characters that only hardcore fans will recognize, but this movie was made for as wide an audience as a video game movie could be. They were trying to make it accessible to all, and I think they accomplished that.
It’s a big budget buddy cop popcorn movie with a lot of action, some laughs, a very light and fluffy kid friendly side love story and great special effects. There was a plot hole or two but it was forgivable and too entertaining to ruin it. I highly recommend turning off your brain, grabbing some popcorn and just enjoying this movie. Not perfect, but very good and fun!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Rampart Guards (The Adventures of Jason Lex, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Roger Charlie in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<p style="text-align: left;"><i>The Rampart Guards</i> basically made me realize that I'm definitely growing out of middle grade books and I should move on. This is an extremely scary thought, because what if I get tired of young adult books next?! That probably won't happen for a good while, and I've yet to actually read an adult novel that isn't from the cause of required reading.
<p style="text-align: left;">The first book in the <i>Chronicles of Jason Lex</i> starts out extremely slow, but picks up pace as the story progresses. Jason's mom suddenly goes missing, and Jason (along with his family) suddenly gets forced to move to a small town with their grandmother to get away from the painful memories of their mom. And to top it off, Jason sees weird blue electricity-like wisps coming out from his hands and eels in the sky later revealed as Skyfish. He's also a little whiny at the beginning of the novel, but eventually drops it as he realizes, "Oh, hey. Cryptids are real. Someone is hoping to expose these creatures and kill millions in the process, and if I don't get my act together, I might lose everything as well."
Wendy Terrien's debut novel is right up my alley in regards to concept <i>The Rampart Guards</i> is about cryptozoology, the study of creatures that may or may not exist. It's not everyday Big Foot, Loch Ness, and other creatures play a critical role in the plot of a novel, and it's the primary reason why <i>The Rampart Guards</i> caught my eye the moment the book was pitched to me.
I adored learning about all kinds of different creatures I've never heard of until I read this book, and if I do decide to continue on with the series, learning more about the cryptids and how this entire world works is going to be one thing I'll be extremely excited for.
Even though I didn't enjoy it as much as I hoped I would, <i>The Rampart Guards</i> will be a fantastic read for younger audiences.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-rampart-guards-by-wendy-terrien/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<p style="text-align: left;"><i>The Rampart Guards</i> basically made me realize that I'm definitely growing out of middle grade books and I should move on. This is an extremely scary thought, because what if I get tired of young adult books next?! That probably won't happen for a good while, and I've yet to actually read an adult novel that isn't from the cause of required reading.
<p style="text-align: left;">The first book in the <i>Chronicles of Jason Lex</i> starts out extremely slow, but picks up pace as the story progresses. Jason's mom suddenly goes missing, and Jason (along with his family) suddenly gets forced to move to a small town with their grandmother to get away from the painful memories of their mom. And to top it off, Jason sees weird blue electricity-like wisps coming out from his hands and eels in the sky later revealed as Skyfish. He's also a little whiny at the beginning of the novel, but eventually drops it as he realizes, "Oh, hey. Cryptids are real. Someone is hoping to expose these creatures and kill millions in the process, and if I don't get my act together, I might lose everything as well."
Wendy Terrien's debut novel is right up my alley in regards to concept <i>The Rampart Guards</i> is about cryptozoology, the study of creatures that may or may not exist. It's not everyday Big Foot, Loch Ness, and other creatures play a critical role in the plot of a novel, and it's the primary reason why <i>The Rampart Guards</i> caught my eye the moment the book was pitched to me.
I adored learning about all kinds of different creatures I've never heard of until I read this book, and if I do decide to continue on with the series, learning more about the cryptids and how this entire world works is going to be one thing I'll be extremely excited for.
Even though I didn't enjoy it as much as I hoped I would, <i>The Rampart Guards</i> will be a fantastic read for younger audiences.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-rampart-guards-by-wendy-terrien/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Apr 16, 2018
Not a Masterpiece, but has a Masterful performance
With the DARK KNIGHT, Christopher Nolan kicks his movie's up a notch. His previous films were critical - but not necessarily commercial - successes. With the 2nd of his Batman trilogy, Nolan swings for the seats and in more ways than one, hits a home run.
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)