Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Lake Placid (1999) in Movies
Jan 7, 2022
Betty White Steals This Film
I have to admit, I actually saw LAKE PLACID in the movie theaters when it came out in 1999. I am a huge JAWS fan and am a sucker for any film that takes the elements of Jaws (or some of them, anyway) and tries to rip-off that classic film.
And, that is what Lake Placid does (is). It’s “Jaws with a Crocodile”. The residents of Black Lake are being picked off one-by-one by a killer croc and a ragtag group of heroes put aside their differences to save the day.
The “ragtag group” features an a few “B-Listers” (at the time) and one “up-and-comer”. Bill Pullman (fresh off INDEPENDENCE DAY) scores a lead role while Bridget Fonda (beginning to fade from view) is the “femme-fatale” and character actor Oliver Platt (currently on CHICAGO MED) eats the screen as the “eccentric, philanthropist Croc hunter” (I can’t think of a philanthropist croc hunter that isn’t eccentric). It also features a then unknown Brendan Gleeson (a few years before his turn as Mad-Eye Moody in the Harry Potter series) as the Sherriff of the town - the Roy Scheider/Sherriff Brody role from Jaws.
But the character that steals this film is, of course, Betty White as a foul-mouthed resident of the community. Flipping the coin on her wholesome image garnered from her turns on THE GOLDEN GIRLS and THE MARY TYLER MOORE show, Ms. White is - as should be expected - hilarious in her raunchiness.
While this movie is the very definition of “B-Movie” (maybe even “C” flick), it’s worth watching just for Betty White’s turn.
Rest in Peace, Ms. White. And THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES.
Letter Grade on Lake Placid: B (and I’m being generous)
Letter Grade on Betty White: A+
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, that is what Lake Placid does (is). It’s “Jaws with a Crocodile”. The residents of Black Lake are being picked off one-by-one by a killer croc and a ragtag group of heroes put aside their differences to save the day.
The “ragtag group” features an a few “B-Listers” (at the time) and one “up-and-comer”. Bill Pullman (fresh off INDEPENDENCE DAY) scores a lead role while Bridget Fonda (beginning to fade from view) is the “femme-fatale” and character actor Oliver Platt (currently on CHICAGO MED) eats the screen as the “eccentric, philanthropist Croc hunter” (I can’t think of a philanthropist croc hunter that isn’t eccentric). It also features a then unknown Brendan Gleeson (a few years before his turn as Mad-Eye Moody in the Harry Potter series) as the Sherriff of the town - the Roy Scheider/Sherriff Brody role from Jaws.
But the character that steals this film is, of course, Betty White as a foul-mouthed resident of the community. Flipping the coin on her wholesome image garnered from her turns on THE GOLDEN GIRLS and THE MARY TYLER MOORE show, Ms. White is - as should be expected - hilarious in her raunchiness.
While this movie is the very definition of “B-Movie” (maybe even “C” flick), it’s worth watching just for Betty White’s turn.
Rest in Peace, Ms. White. And THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES.
Letter Grade on Lake Placid: B (and I’m being generous)
Letter Grade on Betty White: A+
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Hunt for the Troll in Books
Nov 14, 2019
Get ready to immerse yourself in the world of virtual reality gaming and tech startups. The unnamed narrator, a computer genius, is bored after being made moderately rich after starting a company. When his business partner tells him about a new opportunity he agrees to meet but his partner doesn't show. Taking a stop-gap job at a gaming company he starts to get used to his new life when he dreams about the Troll, a dream that may be all too real.
Deciding to pursue the Troll to find out who he really is involves digging into the past and future of Silicon Valley and draws both wanted and unwanted attention. Who is the Troll and what exactly does he want? And more the point, how can he be found?
The narrative for the books runs very much like a somewhat noir detective novel, but without the fedora (although there is a femme fatale and it does rain...) rather than a techo thriller. The main character is very much the sort of person who relishes a new challenge and embraces the search rather more enthusiatically than his work, even though that work involves spending all day in a virtual reality online game.
The plot progresses at pace with interesting characters appearing to cast light and shadows on various aspects of life at the cutting edge of computer technology. There are coincidences that help move the plot along but a lot of the time the reader will be as frustrated as the narrator that the Troll is proving so elusive. There are sub-plots as well and by the end everything has worked itself out to a satisfying conclusion.
It wasn't entirely without flaw for me; I didn't find the narrator particularly sympathetic or easy to identify with as he has a certain selfishness, self-indulgence and lack of empathy but I suppose that is part of his make up as a fundamental part of tech start ups. Some of the other character motivations are a little opaque too.
But these were minor points and didn't detract from what is ultimately an enjoyable and interesting read and definitely shows foresight on where the computer industry is headed right now.
Deciding to pursue the Troll to find out who he really is involves digging into the past and future of Silicon Valley and draws both wanted and unwanted attention. Who is the Troll and what exactly does he want? And more the point, how can he be found?
The narrative for the books runs very much like a somewhat noir detective novel, but without the fedora (although there is a femme fatale and it does rain...) rather than a techo thriller. The main character is very much the sort of person who relishes a new challenge and embraces the search rather more enthusiatically than his work, even though that work involves spending all day in a virtual reality online game.
The plot progresses at pace with interesting characters appearing to cast light and shadows on various aspects of life at the cutting edge of computer technology. There are coincidences that help move the plot along but a lot of the time the reader will be as frustrated as the narrator that the Troll is proving so elusive. There are sub-plots as well and by the end everything has worked itself out to a satisfying conclusion.
It wasn't entirely without flaw for me; I didn't find the narrator particularly sympathetic or easy to identify with as he has a certain selfishness, self-indulgence and lack of empathy but I suppose that is part of his make up as a fundamental part of tech start ups. Some of the other character motivations are a little opaque too.
But these were minor points and didn't detract from what is ultimately an enjoyable and interesting read and definitely shows foresight on where the computer industry is headed right now.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I have to admit, I knew nothing about The Man from U.N.C.L.E going into the movie, other than it was based on a TV show from the 60’s. It had flown under my radar for most of the year, overshadowed by highly-anticipated titles with colons, i.e., Avengers: Age of Ultron, Mad Max: Fury Road, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. When the screener was scheduled I was actually tempted to assign it to another reviewer. Then I watched the trailer and saw Henry Cavill (Superman) was one of the stars. At the risk of sounding shallow, that changed my mind.
As we waited for the movie to start, the Man from U.N.C.L.E soundtrack played through the theater’s sound system, transporting me to a Mad Men mindset, which helped as the movie backdrop is set in the early 1960’s period of the Cold War. We’re introduced first to Napoleon Solo, a CIA agent Cavill plays with amusing James Bond suave with an old-time movie accent. (Officially, I believe it’s called a Transatlantic accent.) He’s paired with Armie Hammer’s Illya Kuryakin, a KGB agent on a joint mission to stop a mysterious international criminal organization. To accomplish that, they need the cooperation of Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander), the abandoned daughter of a German scientist, who is their key to infiltrating the criminal organization.
As you can guess, all the spy movie cliches can be found in Man from U.N.C.L.E. from the debonair womanizing agent, menacing foreigners, the femme fatale, the elaborate schemes that are executed smoothly, explanatory monologues, convenient gadgets, et al – just a vintage low tech, high glam version of spy movies you may have seen of late.
I’m actually glad I went in without any expectations. Guy Ritchie turned a pretty simple, straightforward plot into an intricate,, slightly off-kilter caper, with touches of his trademark storytelling from various perspectives. I enjoyed the subtle vying for supremacy the uneasy truce between Solo and Illya created, and while he’s not as dashing as Cavill, Hammer had great chemistry with Vikander.
This year has been quite the year for spy movies. U.N.C.L.E. is not the action thriller that Mission Impossible is, it’s also far from the campy shocker that Kingsmen was, nor is it as outrageously funny as Spy, but as spy movies go, U.N.C.L.E fits smoothly and oddly comfortably in that fold.
As we waited for the movie to start, the Man from U.N.C.L.E soundtrack played through the theater’s sound system, transporting me to a Mad Men mindset, which helped as the movie backdrop is set in the early 1960’s period of the Cold War. We’re introduced first to Napoleon Solo, a CIA agent Cavill plays with amusing James Bond suave with an old-time movie accent. (Officially, I believe it’s called a Transatlantic accent.) He’s paired with Armie Hammer’s Illya Kuryakin, a KGB agent on a joint mission to stop a mysterious international criminal organization. To accomplish that, they need the cooperation of Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander), the abandoned daughter of a German scientist, who is their key to infiltrating the criminal organization.
As you can guess, all the spy movie cliches can be found in Man from U.N.C.L.E. from the debonair womanizing agent, menacing foreigners, the femme fatale, the elaborate schemes that are executed smoothly, explanatory monologues, convenient gadgets, et al – just a vintage low tech, high glam version of spy movies you may have seen of late.
I’m actually glad I went in without any expectations. Guy Ritchie turned a pretty simple, straightforward plot into an intricate,, slightly off-kilter caper, with touches of his trademark storytelling from various perspectives. I enjoyed the subtle vying for supremacy the uneasy truce between Solo and Illya created, and while he’s not as dashing as Cavill, Hammer had great chemistry with Vikander.
This year has been quite the year for spy movies. U.N.C.L.E. is not the action thriller that Mission Impossible is, it’s also far from the campy shocker that Kingsmen was, nor is it as outrageously funny as Spy, but as spy movies go, U.N.C.L.E fits smoothly and oddly comfortably in that fold.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Spy spoof caper that’s only passably amusing.
It’s a HILARIOUS concept. It’s Bond but not as we know it: a suave, sophisticated, well-dressed hero but someone who’s a complete klutz when it comes to the spy business. Rowan Atkinson is perfect in the role: because when he plays his face ”straight” he IS strangely good-looking and certainly pulls off the air of confidence, intelligence and sophistication well.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Ride of Her Life in Books
Jun 12, 2019
Woman Surprised When Neighbor Waits For Her When Coming Home Late
Genre: Contemporary, Erotica
Word Count: 3,830
Average Smashwords rating: 5 out of 5 stars
My rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars
Warning: quotes below are certainly rated R.
When Andrea’s car breaks down and she gets a ride home with a coworker, the last thing she expects is her sexy yet scary-looking neighbor, Bo, waiting for her and livid. Worried out of his mind, Bo is done flirting with Andrea without action. Tonight, he’ll show her exactly what he wants with her.
Ride of Her Life is a hot little escape, but it’s like daydreaming about the stock photo of a tattooed macho man. True, it has some great sexy time.
He was fucking her hard and fast, but it was too much. Too raw. Too intimate. She felt too vulnerable, and she tried to lower her legs.
“No.” Keeping her legs close together, he leaned forward. “I like it this way. It makes you tighter. Makes you pay attention to me.”
The increase in pressure startled her. “Bo!”
He bucked at the sound of his name, and Andrea could hardly stand the pleasure. It felt naughty, exhibitionistic, and so damn good.
“That’s right, sweet thing. Give it to me. I’m the guy who’s meant to be your lover, not your handyman.”
But Bo has no character whatsoever. For that matter, Andrea isn’t much better with her inconsistent weirdness.
Bo is a jerk. He was mad that his neighbor didn’t call him when she was going to be home late or ask him to drive all the way to the college just to give him a ride. He was even more irritated that the coworker who dropped her off was male. Bo is her next door neighbor! Sure, they’re closer than most neighbors, but that doesn’t mean she needs to call him when she is a little bit late.
There’s an inch of depth that flickers beneath Bo’s otherwise boring flatness. His anger stems from worry and he’s insecure around Andrea. He doesn’t think he’s smart enough for her and in a moment of vulnerability asks her what he means to her.
It’s clear the two of them have history together. They have been neighbors for a while and Bo is always there to help with lawn mowing, giving her takeout, and doing repairs around the house. Andrea fantasizes about him at night but is scared to acknowledge her attraction to him. Bo seems to know it anyway and basically takes her on a picnic table with Andrea barely getting a consent out.
The lack of real consent is a huge turn-off for me. Just because he mows her lawn doesn’t mean he gets to, well, mow her lawn. There’s a difference between dominating and borderline-raping, and I wish that was much clearer here.
Andrea’s character is all over the place. She goes from caring to femme fatale in less than four thousand words.
At first, she’s slightly scared of Bo. She’s nervous and innocent for most of the story.
The tingle was back. Her entire body vibrated with anticipation and nerves. She’d never done anything like this. A thrill of uneasiness and excitement rushed through her
By the end, he’s just a fuck for her.
“Can we go inside now?” she asked, her lips brushing against his ear.
“On one condition. Tell me what I am to you.”
She smiled softly. “Oh honey, you’re the man I call when I need a ride.”
Where is this new found confidence of hers and when did she start calling him honey? Did her orgasm compel a man-eating ghost to possess her for the sake of reliving glory days?
We’ll never find out, because that’s where the story ends. There’s no real conclusion and just the flippant line to half-heartedly tie the ending and beginning together. It left me wholly unsatisfied.
Word Count: 3,830
Average Smashwords rating: 5 out of 5 stars
My rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars
Warning: quotes below are certainly rated R.
When Andrea’s car breaks down and she gets a ride home with a coworker, the last thing she expects is her sexy yet scary-looking neighbor, Bo, waiting for her and livid. Worried out of his mind, Bo is done flirting with Andrea without action. Tonight, he’ll show her exactly what he wants with her.
Ride of Her Life is a hot little escape, but it’s like daydreaming about the stock photo of a tattooed macho man. True, it has some great sexy time.
He was fucking her hard and fast, but it was too much. Too raw. Too intimate. She felt too vulnerable, and she tried to lower her legs.
“No.” Keeping her legs close together, he leaned forward. “I like it this way. It makes you tighter. Makes you pay attention to me.”
The increase in pressure startled her. “Bo!”
He bucked at the sound of his name, and Andrea could hardly stand the pleasure. It felt naughty, exhibitionistic, and so damn good.
“That’s right, sweet thing. Give it to me. I’m the guy who’s meant to be your lover, not your handyman.”
But Bo has no character whatsoever. For that matter, Andrea isn’t much better with her inconsistent weirdness.
Bo is a jerk. He was mad that his neighbor didn’t call him when she was going to be home late or ask him to drive all the way to the college just to give him a ride. He was even more irritated that the coworker who dropped her off was male. Bo is her next door neighbor! Sure, they’re closer than most neighbors, but that doesn’t mean she needs to call him when she is a little bit late.
There’s an inch of depth that flickers beneath Bo’s otherwise boring flatness. His anger stems from worry and he’s insecure around Andrea. He doesn’t think he’s smart enough for her and in a moment of vulnerability asks her what he means to her.
It’s clear the two of them have history together. They have been neighbors for a while and Bo is always there to help with lawn mowing, giving her takeout, and doing repairs around the house. Andrea fantasizes about him at night but is scared to acknowledge her attraction to him. Bo seems to know it anyway and basically takes her on a picnic table with Andrea barely getting a consent out.
The lack of real consent is a huge turn-off for me. Just because he mows her lawn doesn’t mean he gets to, well, mow her lawn. There’s a difference between dominating and borderline-raping, and I wish that was much clearer here.
Andrea’s character is all over the place. She goes from caring to femme fatale in less than four thousand words.
At first, she’s slightly scared of Bo. She’s nervous and innocent for most of the story.
The tingle was back. Her entire body vibrated with anticipation and nerves. She’d never done anything like this. A thrill of uneasiness and excitement rushed through her
By the end, he’s just a fuck for her.
“Can we go inside now?” she asked, her lips brushing against his ear.
“On one condition. Tell me what I am to you.”
She smiled softly. “Oh honey, you’re the man I call when I need a ride.”
Where is this new found confidence of hers and when did she start calling him honey? Did her orgasm compel a man-eating ghost to possess her for the sake of reliving glory days?
We’ll never find out, because that’s where the story ends. There’s no real conclusion and just the flippant line to half-heartedly tie the ending and beginning together. It left me wholly unsatisfied.
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Lady Killers: Deadly Women Throughout History in Books
Sep 3, 2018
I received an uncorrected proof of a true-crime book about female serial killers by Tori Telfer called Lady Killers: Deadly Women Throughout History to peruse and review on Goodreads and Amazon. The book won’t released until October 10, 2017, by Harper Perennial, and I am so thrilled to be one of the few who get to read it first.
Some of the murderers/murderesses have been discussed on My Favorite Murder by Georgia and Karen but some are brand new to me.
From the back cover:
When you think of serial killers throughout history the names that come to mind are ones like Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy but what about Tilly Klimek, Moulay Hassen and Kate Bender? The narrative we’re comfortable with is the one where women are the victims of violent crime, not the perpetrators, in fact, serial killers are thought to be so universally, overwhelmingly male that in 1998, FBI profiler Roy Hazelwood infamously declared in a homicide conference that, “There are no female serial killers.”
Lady Killers, based on the popular online series that appeared on Jezebel and The Hairpin, disputes that claim and offers 14 gruesome examples as evidence. Though largely forgotten by history, female serial killers such as Erzsebet Bathory, Nannie Doss, Mary Ann Cotton, and Darya Nikolayevna Saltykova rival their male counterparts and cunning, cruelty, and appetite for destruction.
Each chapter explores the crimes and history of a different subject and then proceeds to unpack her legacy and her portrayal in the media, as well as the stereotypes and sexist clichés that inevitably surround her. The first book to examine female serial killers through a feminist lens with a witty and dryly humorous tone lady killers dismisses explanations (she was hormonal, she did it for love, a man made her do it) and tired tropes (she was a femme fatale, a black widow, a witch) delving into the complex reality of a female aggression and predation. Featuring 14 illustrations from Dame Darcy, Lady Killers is a blood curdling, insightful, and irresistible journey into the heart of darkness.
Tori Telfer is a full-time freelance writer whose work has appeared in Salon, Vice, Jezebel, The Hairpin, Good Magazine, Bustle, barnesandnoble.com, Chicago Magazine, and elsewhere. She is a Pushcart nominee and the recipient of the Edwin L. Shuman Fiction Award. She has written, directed, and produced independent plays on both Chicago and Los Angeles.
The author’s official website is http://www.toridotgov.com.
The illustrator’s website is http://www.damedarcy.com
Table of Contents
The Blood Countess: Erzsebet Bathory
The Giggling Grandma: Nannie Doss
The Worst Woman on Earth: Lizzie Halliday
Devil in the Shape of a Saint: Elizabeth Ridgeway
Vipers: Raya and Sakina
The Wretched Woman: Mary Ann Cotton
The Tormentor: Darya Nikolayevna Saltykova
Iceberg Anna: Anna Marie Hahn
The Nightingale: Oum-El-Hassen
High Priestess of the Bluebeard Clique: Tillie Klimek
Sorceress of Kilkenny: Alice Kyteler
Beautiful Throat Cutter: Kate Bender
The Angel Makers of Nagyrev
Queen of Poisoners: Marie-Madeleine, the Marquis de Brinvilliers
It looked as if The Angel Makers of Nagyrev wasn’t included in the texts, though it is listed in the contents and notes. However, they are on the pages following the chapter and heading Beautiful Throat Cutter. I had mistakenly thought it wasn't included before. Hopefully, that oversight and will be corrected in the final copy. There were a few punctuation errors in the book and I had intended to leave them in the copy above but allowed Grammarly to correct them without thinking. But that's why they pay the editors the big bucks.
Needless to say, I can’t wait to delve deep in this book and read my little Murderino heart out. I am nearly through the book and will update with a review once I have completed it.
#SSDGM
#Stay Sexy Don't Get Murdered
#myfavoritemurder #murderino #toritelfer #harperperennial #harpercollins #damedarcy
#books #bookstagram #mfmpodcast #georgiahardstark #karenkilgariff #serialkiller #truecrime #murder #killers #ladykiller #ladykillers #serialkillers
Some of the murderers/murderesses have been discussed on My Favorite Murder by Georgia and Karen but some are brand new to me.
From the back cover:
When you think of serial killers throughout history the names that come to mind are ones like Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy but what about Tilly Klimek, Moulay Hassen and Kate Bender? The narrative we’re comfortable with is the one where women are the victims of violent crime, not the perpetrators, in fact, serial killers are thought to be so universally, overwhelmingly male that in 1998, FBI profiler Roy Hazelwood infamously declared in a homicide conference that, “There are no female serial killers.”
Lady Killers, based on the popular online series that appeared on Jezebel and The Hairpin, disputes that claim and offers 14 gruesome examples as evidence. Though largely forgotten by history, female serial killers such as Erzsebet Bathory, Nannie Doss, Mary Ann Cotton, and Darya Nikolayevna Saltykova rival their male counterparts and cunning, cruelty, and appetite for destruction.
Each chapter explores the crimes and history of a different subject and then proceeds to unpack her legacy and her portrayal in the media, as well as the stereotypes and sexist clichés that inevitably surround her. The first book to examine female serial killers through a feminist lens with a witty and dryly humorous tone lady killers dismisses explanations (she was hormonal, she did it for love, a man made her do it) and tired tropes (she was a femme fatale, a black widow, a witch) delving into the complex reality of a female aggression and predation. Featuring 14 illustrations from Dame Darcy, Lady Killers is a blood curdling, insightful, and irresistible journey into the heart of darkness.
Tori Telfer is a full-time freelance writer whose work has appeared in Salon, Vice, Jezebel, The Hairpin, Good Magazine, Bustle, barnesandnoble.com, Chicago Magazine, and elsewhere. She is a Pushcart nominee and the recipient of the Edwin L. Shuman Fiction Award. She has written, directed, and produced independent plays on both Chicago and Los Angeles.
The author’s official website is http://www.toridotgov.com.
The illustrator’s website is http://www.damedarcy.com
Table of Contents
The Blood Countess: Erzsebet Bathory
The Giggling Grandma: Nannie Doss
The Worst Woman on Earth: Lizzie Halliday
Devil in the Shape of a Saint: Elizabeth Ridgeway
Vipers: Raya and Sakina
The Wretched Woman: Mary Ann Cotton
The Tormentor: Darya Nikolayevna Saltykova
Iceberg Anna: Anna Marie Hahn
The Nightingale: Oum-El-Hassen
High Priestess of the Bluebeard Clique: Tillie Klimek
Sorceress of Kilkenny: Alice Kyteler
Beautiful Throat Cutter: Kate Bender
The Angel Makers of Nagyrev
Queen of Poisoners: Marie-Madeleine, the Marquis de Brinvilliers
It looked as if The Angel Makers of Nagyrev wasn’t included in the texts, though it is listed in the contents and notes. However, they are on the pages following the chapter and heading Beautiful Throat Cutter. I had mistakenly thought it wasn't included before. Hopefully, that oversight and will be corrected in the final copy. There were a few punctuation errors in the book and I had intended to leave them in the copy above but allowed Grammarly to correct them without thinking. But that's why they pay the editors the big bucks.
Needless to say, I can’t wait to delve deep in this book and read my little Murderino heart out. I am nearly through the book and will update with a review once I have completed it.
#SSDGM
#Stay Sexy Don't Get Murdered
#myfavoritemurder #murderino #toritelfer #harperperennial #harpercollins #damedarcy
#books #bookstagram #mfmpodcast #georgiahardstark #karenkilgariff #serialkiller #truecrime #murder #killers #ladykiller #ladykillers #serialkillers
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2021
A little too slow and self-indulgent for my tastes
There is no denying that Edward Norton is a talented performer. Ever since he burst onto the scene with his Oscar nominated performance in PRIMAL FEAR, he has been a presence both on and off the screen as an Actor, Writer, Producer and Director.
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) in Movies
Jul 8, 2022
Good Character Arcs for Thor and Jane
Under the Writing and Direction of Taika Waititi, the THOR franchise portion of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has gone in a more comedic, rather than Shakespearean, direction and THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER proves that this direction is a smart one both for THOR and for the overall health and diversity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as well.
Starring Chris Hemsworth, of course, as the titular THOR, Love and Thunder shows our demi-god hero at a crossroads in his life and career. Into this world walks his ex-girlfriend, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and chaos ensues as both are chasing the god-killer, Gorr (Christian Bale).
This sort of premise set-up (and the fact that Hemsworth is playing THOR for the 8th time), could have fallen victim to banality and dullness, but under the watchful eye of Waititi (Writer/Director of the severely under-rated JOJO RABBIT), this THOR soars with the best of them and develops the overall arc and (eventual) pay-off of both Thor’s and Jane’s arcs precisely and (upon retrospection) in the only satisfying way that they could have ended. So, kudos needs to be given to Waititi for walking this tightrope and sticking the landing.
Hemsworth, of course, is charming and buff as Thor and balances the action, romantic drama and comedic portions of this story well. Waititi brings more than just comic relief (though he has plenty of that as well) as the voice of Thor’s buddy KORG, while Christian Bale is more than just one-dimensional (how can this actor be anything but interesting) as the main villain of this piece..
What surprised me the most in this film is the portrayal of Jane Foster by Portman and how her character becomes the “female Thor” (that’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and does NOT become just “Thor’s girlfriend”. Portman has made no secret of her distaste of how her character became the femme fatale in THOR: THE DARK WORLD and refused to return to this character previously. Obviously, Waititi has been able to come up with a storyline - and an arc - that would interest an actress like Portman to return and Natalie nails it. She looked bright-eyed and energized by this part and by where her character goes in this film.
And then there is Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie. This character is a strong part of Thor’s story - and the story of the survivors of Asgaard (their destroyed homeworld). Thompson owns this part and is engaging and interesting to watch on-screen. Out of necessity, her character and story play a supporting role to the main Thor/Jane story, so her character didn’t get quite enough to do for my tastes. But it did whet my appetite for a stand-alone Valkyrie film (make that happen Marvel).
There are cameos and extended-cameos galore in this film - as well as TWO end credits scenes - so to mention them would be to spoil them, except to say that the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY play a pivotal role, but for those who came to see a GUARDIANS film, you’ll have to wait for GUARDIANS 3 to come out next year - this is a THOR film.
A very satisfying entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and while not a perfect film (it does try too hard, at times, to mine the same, surprise comic gold of THOR: RAGNAROK), THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER delivers a stand-alone Thor story that drives both the characters of Thor and Jane forward in a smart, intelligent way…and when is the last time the words “smart and intelligent” were used with a comic book film)?
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starring Chris Hemsworth, of course, as the titular THOR, Love and Thunder shows our demi-god hero at a crossroads in his life and career. Into this world walks his ex-girlfriend, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and chaos ensues as both are chasing the god-killer, Gorr (Christian Bale).
This sort of premise set-up (and the fact that Hemsworth is playing THOR for the 8th time), could have fallen victim to banality and dullness, but under the watchful eye of Waititi (Writer/Director of the severely under-rated JOJO RABBIT), this THOR soars with the best of them and develops the overall arc and (eventual) pay-off of both Thor’s and Jane’s arcs precisely and (upon retrospection) in the only satisfying way that they could have ended. So, kudos needs to be given to Waititi for walking this tightrope and sticking the landing.
Hemsworth, of course, is charming and buff as Thor and balances the action, romantic drama and comedic portions of this story well. Waititi brings more than just comic relief (though he has plenty of that as well) as the voice of Thor’s buddy KORG, while Christian Bale is more than just one-dimensional (how can this actor be anything but interesting) as the main villain of this piece..
What surprised me the most in this film is the portrayal of Jane Foster by Portman and how her character becomes the “female Thor” (that’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and does NOT become just “Thor’s girlfriend”. Portman has made no secret of her distaste of how her character became the femme fatale in THOR: THE DARK WORLD and refused to return to this character previously. Obviously, Waititi has been able to come up with a storyline - and an arc - that would interest an actress like Portman to return and Natalie nails it. She looked bright-eyed and energized by this part and by where her character goes in this film.
And then there is Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie. This character is a strong part of Thor’s story - and the story of the survivors of Asgaard (their destroyed homeworld). Thompson owns this part and is engaging and interesting to watch on-screen. Out of necessity, her character and story play a supporting role to the main Thor/Jane story, so her character didn’t get quite enough to do for my tastes. But it did whet my appetite for a stand-alone Valkyrie film (make that happen Marvel).
There are cameos and extended-cameos galore in this film - as well as TWO end credits scenes - so to mention them would be to spoil them, except to say that the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY play a pivotal role, but for those who came to see a GUARDIANS film, you’ll have to wait for GUARDIANS 3 to come out next year - this is a THOR film.
A very satisfying entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and while not a perfect film (it does try too hard, at times, to mine the same, surprise comic gold of THOR: RAGNAROK), THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER delivers a stand-alone Thor story that drives both the characters of Thor and Jane forward in a smart, intelligent way…and when is the last time the words “smart and intelligent” were used with a comic book film)?
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Jan 2, 2021
Nolan's PhD Thesis on time
And…on the first day of 2021…the BankofMarquis viewed the best film of 2020.
Christopher Nolan’s TENET is dense, beautifully shot, confusing, wonderfully acted, well staged, mind bending…and brilliant.
Starring John David Washington (Denzel’s kid - more on him later), TENET is Christopher Nolan’s “Spy Movie”. Much like what he did with the Murder Mystery genre (MEMENTO), the Heist Genre (INCEPTION), the Sci-Fi flick (INTERSTELLAR) and the war picture (DUNKIRK), Nolan takes the Spy film and turns it upside by playing with the one thing we all take for granted - time.
While all of these previous films were Nolan’s “warm up” to this film, TENET is Nolan’s PhD Thesis on playing with time - and the audience’s expectations of how time works. Not only does Nolan play with moving people and action forward and backwards through time, he also plays scenes where you don’t realize that the two folks talking are actually speaking at 2 different places in time.
It is a mind-bender to be sure - and I cannot imagine what the filmmakers, stunt personnel and actors went through in making it - but there is one thing I can guarantee you - you will be confused for (at least) the first part of the film while you retrain your mind to forget all preconceived notions on how time works.
But, if you are able to get your mind around this, Director Nolan has crafted a strong, well-acted, beautiful, exciting and action packed film that, in the end, is very satisfying.
Let’s start with the acting - top to bottom the performances are stellar. John David Washington (BLACK KkKLANSMAN) is “The Protagonist” (that is how he is billed, we never learn his name) and he is a charming and charismatic screen presence to experience this film with. Washington is a former professional football player and he uses this physicality throughout the film. But he is not a “lumbering brute”. He is intelligent and thoughtful as he learns things and adapts his plans as the audience learns them and helps lead us through the often complex plot and concepts throughout.
Elizabeth Debicki builds on her strong work in 2019’s WIDOWS (if you haven’t seen this film, check it out). Her character is much, much more than a “Femme Fatale” and goes mano-a-mano with the men in this film and more than holds her own. Nolan favorite Michael Caine (ALFIE) shows up as does Himesh Patel (INCEPTION), Dimple Kapadia (a major Bollywood star) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICKASS) - all 3 of them bring their “A” game to this film and supports the story very very well.
Kenneth Branagh (TV’s WALLANDER) shows that he still has his fastball - when he is interested - as the film’s main villain. He has some very intense scenes where he just acts the pants off the others in the room (this is a compliment). Sir Kenneth has had a long, storied career (including many, many Shakespearean roles) and he plays the villain as a Shakespeare villain - and is very successful doing so. I’m glad he didn’t waste his “villain turn” on a Marvel or James Bond flick - he saved it for the right film.
Special notice should be made to the work of Robert Pattinson (TWILIGHT) - he has spent his “post-Twilight” years reinventing himself as a performer, mostly working in small, actor-led independent films, and this performance bears the fruits of those efforts. He is charming and mysterious as The Protagonist’s partner and proves that he can, indeed, act.
Like most Nolan films, the Cinematography is mesmerizing and beautiful to behld. Hats off to frequent Nolan Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema who was able to create a mood and feeling of evil riding just under the surface of beauty - as well as to be able to distinguish those that are going forward in time versus those that are going backwards all while framing shots that are pictures of artistic beauty.
Nolan did not work with frequent musical collaborator Hans Zimmer on this film. He stated he felt that this film needed a “new, more modern” sound and turned to Ludwig Goransson (the Disney+ series THE MANDALORIAN) and he was smart to do so. The music/sound of this film is another character and helps drive the story forward in so many ways.
But make no mistake about it, this film is Nolan’s baby - and it is very “Nolan-y”. The action scenes are smartly put together, the plot and concepts are strong - but very dense - and the performances are strong. All trademarks of my favorite Director working today.
This film is not for everyone. The complexities of the plot are going to be too much for some folks, but if you just “roll with the flow” when your mind can’t quite catch up to the concepts, you will be rewarded with a very rich - very original - film experience. One that, I am sure, will become deeper and richer on the many, many re watches this film deserves.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Christopher Nolan’s TENET is dense, beautifully shot, confusing, wonderfully acted, well staged, mind bending…and brilliant.
Starring John David Washington (Denzel’s kid - more on him later), TENET is Christopher Nolan’s “Spy Movie”. Much like what he did with the Murder Mystery genre (MEMENTO), the Heist Genre (INCEPTION), the Sci-Fi flick (INTERSTELLAR) and the war picture (DUNKIRK), Nolan takes the Spy film and turns it upside by playing with the one thing we all take for granted - time.
While all of these previous films were Nolan’s “warm up” to this film, TENET is Nolan’s PhD Thesis on playing with time - and the audience’s expectations of how time works. Not only does Nolan play with moving people and action forward and backwards through time, he also plays scenes where you don’t realize that the two folks talking are actually speaking at 2 different places in time.
It is a mind-bender to be sure - and I cannot imagine what the filmmakers, stunt personnel and actors went through in making it - but there is one thing I can guarantee you - you will be confused for (at least) the first part of the film while you retrain your mind to forget all preconceived notions on how time works.
But, if you are able to get your mind around this, Director Nolan has crafted a strong, well-acted, beautiful, exciting and action packed film that, in the end, is very satisfying.
Let’s start with the acting - top to bottom the performances are stellar. John David Washington (BLACK KkKLANSMAN) is “The Protagonist” (that is how he is billed, we never learn his name) and he is a charming and charismatic screen presence to experience this film with. Washington is a former professional football player and he uses this physicality throughout the film. But he is not a “lumbering brute”. He is intelligent and thoughtful as he learns things and adapts his plans as the audience learns them and helps lead us through the often complex plot and concepts throughout.
Elizabeth Debicki builds on her strong work in 2019’s WIDOWS (if you haven’t seen this film, check it out). Her character is much, much more than a “Femme Fatale” and goes mano-a-mano with the men in this film and more than holds her own. Nolan favorite Michael Caine (ALFIE) shows up as does Himesh Patel (INCEPTION), Dimple Kapadia (a major Bollywood star) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICKASS) - all 3 of them bring their “A” game to this film and supports the story very very well.
Kenneth Branagh (TV’s WALLANDER) shows that he still has his fastball - when he is interested - as the film’s main villain. He has some very intense scenes where he just acts the pants off the others in the room (this is a compliment). Sir Kenneth has had a long, storied career (including many, many Shakespearean roles) and he plays the villain as a Shakespeare villain - and is very successful doing so. I’m glad he didn’t waste his “villain turn” on a Marvel or James Bond flick - he saved it for the right film.
Special notice should be made to the work of Robert Pattinson (TWILIGHT) - he has spent his “post-Twilight” years reinventing himself as a performer, mostly working in small, actor-led independent films, and this performance bears the fruits of those efforts. He is charming and mysterious as The Protagonist’s partner and proves that he can, indeed, act.
Like most Nolan films, the Cinematography is mesmerizing and beautiful to behld. Hats off to frequent Nolan Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema who was able to create a mood and feeling of evil riding just under the surface of beauty - as well as to be able to distinguish those that are going forward in time versus those that are going backwards all while framing shots that are pictures of artistic beauty.
Nolan did not work with frequent musical collaborator Hans Zimmer on this film. He stated he felt that this film needed a “new, more modern” sound and turned to Ludwig Goransson (the Disney+ series THE MANDALORIAN) and he was smart to do so. The music/sound of this film is another character and helps drive the story forward in so many ways.
But make no mistake about it, this film is Nolan’s baby - and it is very “Nolan-y”. The action scenes are smartly put together, the plot and concepts are strong - but very dense - and the performances are strong. All trademarks of my favorite Director working today.
This film is not for everyone. The complexities of the plot are going to be too much for some folks, but if you just “roll with the flow” when your mind can’t quite catch up to the concepts, you will be rewarded with a very rich - very original - film experience. One that, I am sure, will become deeper and richer on the many, many re watches this film deserves.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Good popcorn nonsense.
“Remember who we are. The Shaw family. We never, never, never give up.”
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.