Search
Search results
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Snatch (2001) in Movies
Dec 20, 2020
Hilarious
Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Snatch
Snatch (2000) is Guy Ritchie’s second film following on from his hugely successful debut, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). Critically Snatch wasn’t quite as well received as it’s predecessor but the general movie going public found it a lot more enjoyable, and personally I agree with the public. I’ve always loved Snatch and prefer it over Lock, Stock.
Snatch tells a rather convoluted and twisting tale about gangsters, diamonds and unlicensed boxing. In a number of intersecting storylines, we see unlicensed boxing promoters Turkish (Jason Statham) and Tommy (Stephen Graham) get pulled into the world of match fixing with violent bookmaker Brick Top (Alan Ford), recruiting Brad Pitt’s gypsy Mickey along the way. And then you have inept criminals Sol (Lennie James), Vinny (Robbie Gee) and Tyrone (Ade) as they attempt to steal a valuable diamond from Franky Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) on behalf of Russian Boris the Blade (Rade Serbedzija), also involving Vinnie Jones’s Bullet-Tooth Tony, Mike Reid’s Doug the Head and Dennis Farina’s Cousin Avi along the way. As you can see, the plot isn’t exactly straight forward but despite it’s complexity, it’s a fun and entertaining watch to see all of these separate storylines come together.
What makes this complex and quite frankly bonkers story so good to watch is the script and absolutely superb dialogue. Considering this isn’t what you’d class as a typical comedy fun, it is downright hilarious. No matter how many times I’ve seen this film, it still makes me laugh every time with it’s smart, witty and funny dialogue. From Turkish’s narration to Cousin Avi’s scathing remarks about London and pretty much every interaction between Sol, Vinny and Tyrone, Snatch is extremely amusing. Admittedly there are some lines and exchanges that feel a little too forced and staged, and I think this may be due to some questionable acting and the sometimes unnatural sounding London accents.
Guy Ritchie has undoubtedly put together a stylish and slick film, and Snatch definitely encompasses the dark and gritty feel of London. Maybe a little too much as it can feel a bit gloomy at times. It has a great soundtrack and this really works with Ritchie’s directing style for the most part. There are some questionable camera angles and not all of these work – the most grating for me was in the opening scenes with Franky Four Finger’s heist where the camera jumped around far too much.
Despite this, his style works well in general and is aided by the fantastic cast that has been assembled. I’ve never been a fan of Jason Statham, but this is by far his best work, although the star of Snatch is certainly Brad Pitt, who is virtually unrecognisable as gypsy Mickey, both in looks and with his purposely indecipherable Irish accent. Snatch came out the year after Fight Club at a time that would likely be classed as the peak of Pitt’s career, so to see him play a character like Mickey was surprising to say the least. But the entire cast shine with the material they’ve got to work with.
Snatch isn’t a film for everyone and definitely not for the easily offended. For me, I could watch this repeatedly and still laugh every time, and it’s absolutely deserving of a place on this list.
Snatch (2000) is Guy Ritchie’s second film following on from his hugely successful debut, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). Critically Snatch wasn’t quite as well received as it’s predecessor but the general movie going public found it a lot more enjoyable, and personally I agree with the public. I’ve always loved Snatch and prefer it over Lock, Stock.
Snatch tells a rather convoluted and twisting tale about gangsters, diamonds and unlicensed boxing. In a number of intersecting storylines, we see unlicensed boxing promoters Turkish (Jason Statham) and Tommy (Stephen Graham) get pulled into the world of match fixing with violent bookmaker Brick Top (Alan Ford), recruiting Brad Pitt’s gypsy Mickey along the way. And then you have inept criminals Sol (Lennie James), Vinny (Robbie Gee) and Tyrone (Ade) as they attempt to steal a valuable diamond from Franky Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) on behalf of Russian Boris the Blade (Rade Serbedzija), also involving Vinnie Jones’s Bullet-Tooth Tony, Mike Reid’s Doug the Head and Dennis Farina’s Cousin Avi along the way. As you can see, the plot isn’t exactly straight forward but despite it’s complexity, it’s a fun and entertaining watch to see all of these separate storylines come together.
What makes this complex and quite frankly bonkers story so good to watch is the script and absolutely superb dialogue. Considering this isn’t what you’d class as a typical comedy fun, it is downright hilarious. No matter how many times I’ve seen this film, it still makes me laugh every time with it’s smart, witty and funny dialogue. From Turkish’s narration to Cousin Avi’s scathing remarks about London and pretty much every interaction between Sol, Vinny and Tyrone, Snatch is extremely amusing. Admittedly there are some lines and exchanges that feel a little too forced and staged, and I think this may be due to some questionable acting and the sometimes unnatural sounding London accents.
Guy Ritchie has undoubtedly put together a stylish and slick film, and Snatch definitely encompasses the dark and gritty feel of London. Maybe a little too much as it can feel a bit gloomy at times. It has a great soundtrack and this really works with Ritchie’s directing style for the most part. There are some questionable camera angles and not all of these work – the most grating for me was in the opening scenes with Franky Four Finger’s heist where the camera jumped around far too much.
Despite this, his style works well in general and is aided by the fantastic cast that has been assembled. I’ve never been a fan of Jason Statham, but this is by far his best work, although the star of Snatch is certainly Brad Pitt, who is virtually unrecognisable as gypsy Mickey, both in looks and with his purposely indecipherable Irish accent. Snatch came out the year after Fight Club at a time that would likely be classed as the peak of Pitt’s career, so to see him play a character like Mickey was surprising to say the least. But the entire cast shine with the material they’ve got to work with.
Snatch isn’t a film for everyone and definitely not for the easily offended. For me, I could watch this repeatedly and still laugh every time, and it’s absolutely deserving of a place on this list.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
May 8, 2020
"Funner" than I expected
BLOODSHOT was one of those movies that I was going to "get around to see, sometime" before it left the movie theaters, little did I know that I would leave the movie theaters before Bloodshot did. So, when I ran across it On-Demand at home, I figured I would check it out - probably to let it run in the background as I multi-tasked.
Well...a funny thing happened while multi-tasking while watching this film. I found myself NOT multi-tasking, but rather, I stopped to focus on the film, for I was being entertained by the events unfolding before me on my screen.
Based on the Valiant comic of the same name, BLOODSHOT tells the tale of Ray Garrison a slain soldier who is brought back to life with nano-technology - technology that allows him to be used as a tool by Dr. Emil Harting.
Vin Diesel is the perfect blunt instrument to play Bloodshot. He reeks of testosterone and macho-ness but is a winning personality on the screen with enough charm and charisma to draw the audience in. Ably aiding him is Eiza Gonzalez (BABY DRIVER) as KT - another experiment/tool of Dr. Harting's - their relationship is the heart of this movie and it there is "enough" chemistry between the two to make me care about them. The revelation for me in this film is Lamorne Morris (GAME NIGHT) as Wilfred Wigans - a rival hacker who is an enemy (or is he a friend) of Bloodshot. I loved the fun that Wigans brought to the role and the film - he knew what kind of movie he was in and just "ran with it".
Everyone else in this film is pretty "generic" - especially (to my disappointment) Guy Pearce as Dr. Harting. I needed him to be less contained and more broad for this type of comic book film. I read that Michael Sheen was slated to play this role but had to drop out at the last moment due to scheduling conflicts. I would have loved to have seen "wild. out of control Michael Sheen" in this role.
The direction by David Wilson - in his major motion picture debut - is "serviceable", his direction doesn't get in the way. He is a former Visual Effects Supervisor and it shows in this film for it is at it's best when the VFX takes center stage (especially in the fight/action scenes). The key to Bloodshot is that he cannot be killed by conventional means for the nano-bots in his blood stream will reform immediately. So, you get quite a few slow-motion shots of bullets piercing through various parts of Bloodshot's body (with nano-bots flying out) only to have the nano-bots stop their flight away from the body and return to reform the shape of the particular body part (mostly, Bloodshot's head). In lesser hands, this could be an annoying trick, but it worked for me here.
The script and secondary characters and the plot is mostly throwaway in this film - clearly we are here for the fight scenes and the VFX - and if you set your expectations correctly, you will be entertained by this film.
I know I was - to my surprise.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...a funny thing happened while multi-tasking while watching this film. I found myself NOT multi-tasking, but rather, I stopped to focus on the film, for I was being entertained by the events unfolding before me on my screen.
Based on the Valiant comic of the same name, BLOODSHOT tells the tale of Ray Garrison a slain soldier who is brought back to life with nano-technology - technology that allows him to be used as a tool by Dr. Emil Harting.
Vin Diesel is the perfect blunt instrument to play Bloodshot. He reeks of testosterone and macho-ness but is a winning personality on the screen with enough charm and charisma to draw the audience in. Ably aiding him is Eiza Gonzalez (BABY DRIVER) as KT - another experiment/tool of Dr. Harting's - their relationship is the heart of this movie and it there is "enough" chemistry between the two to make me care about them. The revelation for me in this film is Lamorne Morris (GAME NIGHT) as Wilfred Wigans - a rival hacker who is an enemy (or is he a friend) of Bloodshot. I loved the fun that Wigans brought to the role and the film - he knew what kind of movie he was in and just "ran with it".
Everyone else in this film is pretty "generic" - especially (to my disappointment) Guy Pearce as Dr. Harting. I needed him to be less contained and more broad for this type of comic book film. I read that Michael Sheen was slated to play this role but had to drop out at the last moment due to scheduling conflicts. I would have loved to have seen "wild. out of control Michael Sheen" in this role.
The direction by David Wilson - in his major motion picture debut - is "serviceable", his direction doesn't get in the way. He is a former Visual Effects Supervisor and it shows in this film for it is at it's best when the VFX takes center stage (especially in the fight/action scenes). The key to Bloodshot is that he cannot be killed by conventional means for the nano-bots in his blood stream will reform immediately. So, you get quite a few slow-motion shots of bullets piercing through various parts of Bloodshot's body (with nano-bots flying out) only to have the nano-bots stop their flight away from the body and return to reform the shape of the particular body part (mostly, Bloodshot's head). In lesser hands, this could be an annoying trick, but it worked for me here.
The script and secondary characters and the plot is mostly throwaway in this film - clearly we are here for the fight scenes and the VFX - and if you set your expectations correctly, you will be entertained by this film.
I know I was - to my surprise.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
For the Demented by Annihilator
Album Watch
Annihilator’s brand-new album “For The demented” promises to pack a premier punch....
Metal
Infinity Blade III
Games and Entertainment
4.0
Rate It
App
Join our new forums: https://www.epicgames.com/infinityblade/forums/ What the press is saying about...
Cut the Rope 2: Om Nom's Quest
Games and Entertainment
App
Second part of the legendary Cut the Rope logic puzzles series. Get it now for free! Cut the Rope 2...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fences (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Last Post.
In “Fences” Denzel Washington plays Troy – a bitter, self-centred and selfish man in his mid-fifties who loves the sound of his own voice. They say “empty vessels make the most noise” and here is a case in point. Set in the early fifties, race plays a strong card in every aspect of life, and Troy feels betrayed by a failed baseball career that – in his eyes at least – looked over his skills to the colour of his skin. But Troy is also a stubborn cuss, and refuses to acknowledge that even in the 50’s “The times they are a changing’”. His cussedness puts him on a collision course with his teenage son Cory (Jovan Adepo), given his aspirations for a college football scholarship, and his mother (Viola Davis, “The Help”) tries to keep the peace between the two of them.
This is a film primarily about resistance to change. All those changes in the outside world are on the ‘other side of the fence’ that Troy habitually tries to finish but never seems to put his mind to. Fences keep things out; but they also keep things in, and Troy is in a cocoon of his own making. He justifies his actions as a ‘family provider’ with lengthy speeches but ultimately they deliver hollow words and assertions that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
This is a pressure cooker of family life that is primed to blow, and a revelation (which I didn’t see coming) sets that fuse alight.
This is a film worth watching for the acting performances of Denzel Washington and (particularly) Viola Davis, winner of the Best Supporting Actress BAFTA and a strong contender for the Oscar. Both give assured performances, although Troy is such an instantly dis-likable and pitiable character that I could feel my emotions influencing my judgement about his performance.
But this is also a strong ensemble cast, with Mykelti Williamson (famously appearing as Bubba of the ‘Bubba Gump Shrimp Factory’ fame) being effective as Troy’s disabled brother and English-born Jovan Adepo being particularly impressive in an extremely assured feature debut.
However, the Broadway roots of the piece are highly visible with 98% of the film set either in the back yard, in the house, or on the front steps (the set could clearly rotate!). For such a claustrophobic topic, this is perhaps apt. But as a feature film I longed for the action to go elsewhere. The film version of the story – with a few tweaks to the screenplay – has lots of opportunities for this, but these are never taken. This makes the whole piece feel ‘worthy but dull’. In particular, anyone looking for a useful tutorial on fence building needs to look elsewhere!
As for the recent “Moonlight” there is also excessive use of the “N” word and other outdated racial references that have the potential to offend.
Good luck to Viola Davis and Denzel Washington (who also directed this) for their Best Supporting Actress and Best Actor Oscars nominations. But “Best Film” Oscar? No, I don’t think so. In truth this is a film that I will struggle to remember or get excited about in a month’s time and it will not be on my re-watch list.
This is a film primarily about resistance to change. All those changes in the outside world are on the ‘other side of the fence’ that Troy habitually tries to finish but never seems to put his mind to. Fences keep things out; but they also keep things in, and Troy is in a cocoon of his own making. He justifies his actions as a ‘family provider’ with lengthy speeches but ultimately they deliver hollow words and assertions that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
This is a pressure cooker of family life that is primed to blow, and a revelation (which I didn’t see coming) sets that fuse alight.
This is a film worth watching for the acting performances of Denzel Washington and (particularly) Viola Davis, winner of the Best Supporting Actress BAFTA and a strong contender for the Oscar. Both give assured performances, although Troy is such an instantly dis-likable and pitiable character that I could feel my emotions influencing my judgement about his performance.
But this is also a strong ensemble cast, with Mykelti Williamson (famously appearing as Bubba of the ‘Bubba Gump Shrimp Factory’ fame) being effective as Troy’s disabled brother and English-born Jovan Adepo being particularly impressive in an extremely assured feature debut.
However, the Broadway roots of the piece are highly visible with 98% of the film set either in the back yard, in the house, or on the front steps (the set could clearly rotate!). For such a claustrophobic topic, this is perhaps apt. But as a feature film I longed for the action to go elsewhere. The film version of the story – with a few tweaks to the screenplay – has lots of opportunities for this, but these are never taken. This makes the whole piece feel ‘worthy but dull’. In particular, anyone looking for a useful tutorial on fence building needs to look elsewhere!
As for the recent “Moonlight” there is also excessive use of the “N” word and other outdated racial references that have the potential to offend.
Good luck to Viola Davis and Denzel Washington (who also directed this) for their Best Supporting Actress and Best Actor Oscars nominations. But “Best Film” Oscar? No, I don’t think so. In truth this is a film that I will struggle to remember or get excited about in a month’s time and it will not be on my re-watch list.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Respect (2021) in Movies
Oct 14, 2021
Re, re, re, re, ‘spect… Just a little bit.
What with holidays and Bond, it’s taken me a few weeks to get to see this Aretha Franklin biopic. But I finally caught it this week.
Plot Summary:
‘Re’ is a 10-year old growing up in relative middle-class affluence in Birmingham, Alabama with her high-profile preacher father C.L. Franklin (Forest Whitaker). She is blessed with a wonderful singing voice. We follow her career, as Aretha Franklin (Jennifer Hudson), through her struggles with controlling men and alcohol. This is against the backdrop of supporting the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King (Gilbert Glenn Brown).
“Respect” Review: Positives:
Jennifer Hudson gives a tremendous performance as Franklin, delivering both the vocals and the acting admirably. (Apparently, the lady herself, before she died in August 2018, named Hudson as the best person to play her.)
Coming out of this movie, you have to admire Aretha Franklin’s legacy. Although there are moments when her ‘demons’ got the better of her (and the movie is unafraid to paint her in a negative light for these) she led a tumultuous life and yet was still a strong force for both feminism and equality. I think the movie highlights that admirably. “Have you lost your mind?” her father (Forest Whitaker) asks. “Maybe…. maybe I’ve found it.” she replies.
I loved the clip during the end titles (at a Carole King concert and in front of the Obamas) of Franklin well into her 70’s belting out “Natural Woman”. Classy stuff.
Negatives:
It’s long. Very long. Approaching Bond long.
There’s a curious ‘cookie-cutter-ness’ to these biopics of classic female singers (controlling and abusive men; alcohol/drug abuse; prejudice through sex/race; etc). (Would they even have emanated the same level of soul without all the grief? Perhaps not.) The similarities lead you to naturally compare this movie with “The US vs Billie Holiday“. The Billie Holiday story felt like it had a lot more grit and angst in it, making it, for me at least, more memorable. The script for “Respect” – although still rather episodic – flows better. Whilst still great, Hudson’s performance (an Oscar nomination perhaps?) doesn’t come close to the Oscar-nominated stellar job done by Andra Day.
I didn’t like how the script introduced us to its characters. For example, Ted White (Marlon Wayans) is introduced at a church barbeque. He’s painted as a disreputable character, but why? And you have no idea if he is supposed to be a famous singer, a songwriter, a promoter, or a producer (as in fact he is). As another example, Kelvin Hair plays Sam Cooke in the movie, but – unless I missed it – this doesn’t seem to be highlighted in the script.
Summary Thoughts on “Respect”
“Respect” is the feature debut for female director Liesl Tommy. And it’s certainly an ambitious target for a first-timer to shoot at, so ‘Respect’ for that! And it comes across as a solid and enjoyable biopic, not least to remind yourself of some of the classic tunes that Aretha Franklin belted out. At 145 minutes though, it takes its time telling its story, and I think a tighter, shorter film would have worked better.
Did I enjoy it though? Yes, I did. But it’s worth pointing out that the illustrious Mrs Movie Man – who normally begrudges every minute over 90 minutes in a movie – really loved this one.
Plot Summary:
‘Re’ is a 10-year old growing up in relative middle-class affluence in Birmingham, Alabama with her high-profile preacher father C.L. Franklin (Forest Whitaker). She is blessed with a wonderful singing voice. We follow her career, as Aretha Franklin (Jennifer Hudson), through her struggles with controlling men and alcohol. This is against the backdrop of supporting the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King (Gilbert Glenn Brown).
“Respect” Review: Positives:
Jennifer Hudson gives a tremendous performance as Franklin, delivering both the vocals and the acting admirably. (Apparently, the lady herself, before she died in August 2018, named Hudson as the best person to play her.)
Coming out of this movie, you have to admire Aretha Franklin’s legacy. Although there are moments when her ‘demons’ got the better of her (and the movie is unafraid to paint her in a negative light for these) she led a tumultuous life and yet was still a strong force for both feminism and equality. I think the movie highlights that admirably. “Have you lost your mind?” her father (Forest Whitaker) asks. “Maybe…. maybe I’ve found it.” she replies.
I loved the clip during the end titles (at a Carole King concert and in front of the Obamas) of Franklin well into her 70’s belting out “Natural Woman”. Classy stuff.
Negatives:
It’s long. Very long. Approaching Bond long.
There’s a curious ‘cookie-cutter-ness’ to these biopics of classic female singers (controlling and abusive men; alcohol/drug abuse; prejudice through sex/race; etc). (Would they even have emanated the same level of soul without all the grief? Perhaps not.) The similarities lead you to naturally compare this movie with “The US vs Billie Holiday“. The Billie Holiday story felt like it had a lot more grit and angst in it, making it, for me at least, more memorable. The script for “Respect” – although still rather episodic – flows better. Whilst still great, Hudson’s performance (an Oscar nomination perhaps?) doesn’t come close to the Oscar-nominated stellar job done by Andra Day.
I didn’t like how the script introduced us to its characters. For example, Ted White (Marlon Wayans) is introduced at a church barbeque. He’s painted as a disreputable character, but why? And you have no idea if he is supposed to be a famous singer, a songwriter, a promoter, or a producer (as in fact he is). As another example, Kelvin Hair plays Sam Cooke in the movie, but – unless I missed it – this doesn’t seem to be highlighted in the script.
Summary Thoughts on “Respect”
“Respect” is the feature debut for female director Liesl Tommy. And it’s certainly an ambitious target for a first-timer to shoot at, so ‘Respect’ for that! And it comes across as a solid and enjoyable biopic, not least to remind yourself of some of the classic tunes that Aretha Franklin belted out. At 145 minutes though, it takes its time telling its story, and I think a tighter, shorter film would have worked better.
Did I enjoy it though? Yes, I did. But it’s worth pointing out that the illustrious Mrs Movie Man – who normally begrudges every minute over 90 minutes in a movie – really loved this one.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Red Rising in Books
May 30, 2017
Mildly boring
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Red Rising by debut author Pierce Brown is a very difficult book to review. It is clear that Brown is an excellent writer with amazing ideas, but at the same time it does not feel possible to rate the book any higher that two or three stars. This first book of three is somewhat alike The Hunger Games Trilogy by Suzanne Collins and has some very exciting themes. However at other times it provoked a range of emotions from disgust to almost verging on boredom.
Set thousands of years in the future, the world has become colour coded. Gold are the elite, the ruling colour, and at the bottom of the pile are the Reds. Darrow is a Red and lives below the surface of the planet Mars in the mines with the responsibility of helping to make the planet’s surface habitable for humans in the future. He soon discovers that the ruling societies have been lying to him all his life, and to the many generations before him. But there is an uprising brewing and Darrow has been chosen to play a vital role in it, even though that means pretending to be the enemy.
Although it was difficult to get into the novel it appeared to be clear what the plot would be about. Wrong! Once Darrow has been trained to behave like a Gold the storyline changes completely. It is almost as though it is a different book altogether. Red Rising suddenly becomes Hunger Games-esque and the situations with the Reds, while being referred to once or twice, was all but forgotten. Presumably those original themes will continue within the final books of the trilogy.
Living under the surface of Mars with no sunlight speeds up the aging process of the inhabitants. People in the thirties are considered old; therefore even though Darrow is a teenager in Earth years, he is portrayed as a man – an image that is difficult to shake off throughout the entire book. Once Darrow is living with the Golds and, supposedly, resembling his true age, it is still easy to forget that he is young. This may change the way the reader pictures the scenes compared with how the author intended them to be imagined. The characters are still only children but may be mistaken for adults due Darrow’s opening scenes.
It cannot be denied that Brown is a very knowledgeable writer. As well as writing in an exceptionally well-structured way, he incorporates a vast amount of high culture into his story. A lot of the novel is influenced by Greek and Roman mythology and he also quotes famous philosophers such as Cicero and Plato. So despite its science fiction genre it also has a slight educational nature.
Something interesting about Red Rising was the character development of Darrow. At the beginning he was rather naïve, believing everything he was told, following orders etc. But soon he becomes more confident, clever, Gold-like. However he then becomes like a wild beast, killing to survive, to win. Thankfully his cleverness takes control and he realises that he needs to become a leader and not a tyrant. Towards the end he even becomes messiah-like. As Darrow progresses through these changes he becomes a more likable character.
I am not sure whether I want to read the next installment of Red Rising. For the beginning storyline to continue and become the main focus, the book would need to be completely different. This could be a good thing because, as mentioned, there were times when it was a little boring, however there’s the risk that it will not feel like a follow on from the first book. I do not want to put anyone off from reading it, but I will honestly say that it was not really what I was expecting.
Red Rising by debut author Pierce Brown is a very difficult book to review. It is clear that Brown is an excellent writer with amazing ideas, but at the same time it does not feel possible to rate the book any higher that two or three stars. This first book of three is somewhat alike The Hunger Games Trilogy by Suzanne Collins and has some very exciting themes. However at other times it provoked a range of emotions from disgust to almost verging on boredom.
Set thousands of years in the future, the world has become colour coded. Gold are the elite, the ruling colour, and at the bottom of the pile are the Reds. Darrow is a Red and lives below the surface of the planet Mars in the mines with the responsibility of helping to make the planet’s surface habitable for humans in the future. He soon discovers that the ruling societies have been lying to him all his life, and to the many generations before him. But there is an uprising brewing and Darrow has been chosen to play a vital role in it, even though that means pretending to be the enemy.
Although it was difficult to get into the novel it appeared to be clear what the plot would be about. Wrong! Once Darrow has been trained to behave like a Gold the storyline changes completely. It is almost as though it is a different book altogether. Red Rising suddenly becomes Hunger Games-esque and the situations with the Reds, while being referred to once or twice, was all but forgotten. Presumably those original themes will continue within the final books of the trilogy.
Living under the surface of Mars with no sunlight speeds up the aging process of the inhabitants. People in the thirties are considered old; therefore even though Darrow is a teenager in Earth years, he is portrayed as a man – an image that is difficult to shake off throughout the entire book. Once Darrow is living with the Golds and, supposedly, resembling his true age, it is still easy to forget that he is young. This may change the way the reader pictures the scenes compared with how the author intended them to be imagined. The characters are still only children but may be mistaken for adults due Darrow’s opening scenes.
It cannot be denied that Brown is a very knowledgeable writer. As well as writing in an exceptionally well-structured way, he incorporates a vast amount of high culture into his story. A lot of the novel is influenced by Greek and Roman mythology and he also quotes famous philosophers such as Cicero and Plato. So despite its science fiction genre it also has a slight educational nature.
Something interesting about Red Rising was the character development of Darrow. At the beginning he was rather naïve, believing everything he was told, following orders etc. But soon he becomes more confident, clever, Gold-like. However he then becomes like a wild beast, killing to survive, to win. Thankfully his cleverness takes control and he realises that he needs to become a leader and not a tyrant. Towards the end he even becomes messiah-like. As Darrow progresses through these changes he becomes a more likable character.
I am not sure whether I want to read the next installment of Red Rising. For the beginning storyline to continue and become the main focus, the book would need to be completely different. This could be a good thing because, as mentioned, there were times when it was a little boring, however there’s the risk that it will not feel like a follow on from the first book. I do not want to put anyone off from reading it, but I will honestly say that it was not really what I was expecting.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Primary Victim in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Primary Victim by Christopher Cihlar
Genre: Crime Fiction, Crime thriller
Rating: 4.5/5
Summary (from back of book): A serial killer whose victims don’t die. An innocent man who believes he is guilty. A police officer who may solve the crime but in doing so gives the killer exactly what he wants. A legal defense that challenges the very core ideals of justice.
Primary Victim is a thriller that tests both the psychological breaking point of an individual and the strength of the legal system governing society.
Review:
I’ll admit up front that I have a weakness for crime fiction—but this book was amazing. Words escape my mind as I try to explain how blown away I am by this book. I gasped and grinned and nearly cried and laughed at the surprises thrown at me through this stunning debut novel.
The psychological aspect of PRIMARY VICTIM was mainly found in the “Victim,” Brice. I won’t say what happens to him, but it amazed me as his mind began to twist and change through the course of the story.
The plot: PRIMARY VICTIM was full of twists and turns that I never expected, and it had me sitting on the edge of my seat the entire time. I couldn’t put it down! The viewpoint alternates between the criminal, the police officer, and the (living) victim, and switches back and forth at the most inconvenient places, forcing you to read on.
Characters: All the characters in PRIMARY VICTIM were strongly developed with real personalities. I hate books where people are just to perfect to be real (what I call “happyland syndrome”)—this book had the good guys and the bad guys, the the ones you hoped it all worked out for them, and the ones that you wished would be the next to die because they were such jerks (cough Nick cough).
By the end of the book I wasn’t sure what Michael (the criminal) was going to pull out of his hat, and was, from the very first page to the very last, impressed with Michael’s genius and creativity. At times I actually found myself almost cheering for him, but had to remind myself that he was the bad guy. It was almost hard to see him as the bad guy at times, because of his “work—” Michael considered himself a God in a world that needed one and didn’t have one, victimizing the people that he thought needed to be victimized.
Brice and Sarah were such a perfect yet sad couple, and for the sake of keeping the review spoiler-free, I won’t say anything… but I thought I was going to cry at one point.
Writing: The writing was the weakest point of this book. The prose itself seemed written in an unfamiliar style, minimizing comas in the sentences, and it made for a harder read. I caught myself occasionally re-reading sentences and paragraphs to understand what had happened. Aside from the prose, the vocabulary was broad enough and the pacing was good.
As of now, PRIMARY VICTIM is unedited, but there is only an occasional grammatical error, formatting error, or typo scattered through the book. However, all in all, it didn’t take away from the story.
Content: There was brief mention of sex between husband and wife (example: “they made love,” no other details, and the fact that they’re married made it that much better), and an occasional foul word from an angry officer, but other than that this book was refreshingly clean. I applaud Christopher for writing a crime thriller with low content—especially compared to some of the other crime thrillers out there. Maybe he can start a revolution. It’s true, people—you can have a good book without excessive sex and language!
Recommendation: Ages 14+ to lovers of Crime fiction, thrillers, and psychological thrillers.
Genre: Crime Fiction, Crime thriller
Rating: 4.5/5
Summary (from back of book): A serial killer whose victims don’t die. An innocent man who believes he is guilty. A police officer who may solve the crime but in doing so gives the killer exactly what he wants. A legal defense that challenges the very core ideals of justice.
Primary Victim is a thriller that tests both the psychological breaking point of an individual and the strength of the legal system governing society.
Review:
I’ll admit up front that I have a weakness for crime fiction—but this book was amazing. Words escape my mind as I try to explain how blown away I am by this book. I gasped and grinned and nearly cried and laughed at the surprises thrown at me through this stunning debut novel.
The psychological aspect of PRIMARY VICTIM was mainly found in the “Victim,” Brice. I won’t say what happens to him, but it amazed me as his mind began to twist and change through the course of the story.
The plot: PRIMARY VICTIM was full of twists and turns that I never expected, and it had me sitting on the edge of my seat the entire time. I couldn’t put it down! The viewpoint alternates between the criminal, the police officer, and the (living) victim, and switches back and forth at the most inconvenient places, forcing you to read on.
Characters: All the characters in PRIMARY VICTIM were strongly developed with real personalities. I hate books where people are just to perfect to be real (what I call “happyland syndrome”)—this book had the good guys and the bad guys, the the ones you hoped it all worked out for them, and the ones that you wished would be the next to die because they were such jerks (cough Nick cough).
By the end of the book I wasn’t sure what Michael (the criminal) was going to pull out of his hat, and was, from the very first page to the very last, impressed with Michael’s genius and creativity. At times I actually found myself almost cheering for him, but had to remind myself that he was the bad guy. It was almost hard to see him as the bad guy at times, because of his “work—” Michael considered himself a God in a world that needed one and didn’t have one, victimizing the people that he thought needed to be victimized.
Brice and Sarah were such a perfect yet sad couple, and for the sake of keeping the review spoiler-free, I won’t say anything… but I thought I was going to cry at one point.
Writing: The writing was the weakest point of this book. The prose itself seemed written in an unfamiliar style, minimizing comas in the sentences, and it made for a harder read. I caught myself occasionally re-reading sentences and paragraphs to understand what had happened. Aside from the prose, the vocabulary was broad enough and the pacing was good.
As of now, PRIMARY VICTIM is unedited, but there is only an occasional grammatical error, formatting error, or typo scattered through the book. However, all in all, it didn’t take away from the story.
Content: There was brief mention of sex between husband and wife (example: “they made love,” no other details, and the fact that they’re married made it that much better), and an occasional foul word from an angry officer, but other than that this book was refreshingly clean. I applaud Christopher for writing a crime thriller with low content—especially compared to some of the other crime thrillers out there. Maybe he can start a revolution. It’s true, people—you can have a good book without excessive sex and language!
Recommendation: Ages 14+ to lovers of Crime fiction, thrillers, and psychological thrillers.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mary Poppins (1964) in Movies
Apr 20, 2019
Practically Perfect In Every Way
After watching MARY POPPINS RETURNS, the BankofMarquis was itching to check out the original 1964 Julie Andrews/Dick Van Dyke/Walt Disney production of MARY POPPINS to see if it holds up as well as my memory has held it up. I was a little nervous when I put the DVD in the player and hit go.
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)