Search
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated The Master and Margarita in Books
Aug 9, 2019
Worth a read? Yes. Worth a reread? Maybe not.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Master and Magarita: Mikhail Bulgakov
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Glory Road (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Sports films have long been a popular genre in Hollywood as classics such as Pride of the Yankees, The Natural, and Raging Bull are all examples of some of the finest examples of sports films which encapsulate the very essence of the sport they portray.
In the new film Glory Road Josh Lucas stars as Don Haskins, a girls Basketball coach who is given the chance to coach a Division 1 team at Texas Western in 1966.
The small school cannot offer the coach much in the way of amenities as Don and his family are required to live in the student’s dorm. Since his dreams of playing pro ball came to a halt after a knee injury, Haskins looks at his job as a chance for him to make a name for himself.
The task will be daunting as Texas Western is a very small school that puts the majority of its athletic budget into the football program leaving next to no money for the gym, new equipment, and recruiting of players.
After a frustrating attempt to recruit players at a local invitational, Haskins sets his sites on a young African American player who while big on attitude, is also big on potential.
With scholarships to offer, Haskins and his staff travel the nation and shock the conservative school by offering scholarships to 8 African American players. In a day and age when teams had at most 1-2 African American players; many of whom did not see much playing time; this is a risky move for the coach.
Undaunted, the coach begins the process of integrating his new players with his current players all of whom are Caucasian, which leads to some tension over starting rights, abilities, and styles.
Haskins is a no nonsense coach who is very strict in regards to grades, effort in practice, and above all avoiding late nights and carousing while the season is underway. Despite this, many players decide to test the will of the coach which raises issues of commitment to the team and discipline, all of which are standard staples of sports films.
When the season starts, a funny thing happens. Not only is the coach playing his African American players in a heavy rotation, but little Texas Western is winning their games and beating some of the more noted teams in the country in the process.
As their notoriety increases so does the amount of hostility directed towards the team from racially incensed fans who do not like the make up of the team and especially hate their success.
Despite this, the team finds itself in the National Championship game against powerful Kentucky coached by the legendary Adolph Rupp (Jon Voight), where Haskins makes history by starting and playing only his African American players which is a first in NCAA finals history.
While the marketing and trailers for the film certainly do not hesitate from telling you most of the above and underscoring that the team ends up in the finals and that the film is based on a true story, it is not about the final results, it is about the journey the team took getting there.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer is a master at knowing what the fans want and director James Gartner gives viewers a by the number film that delivers the goods. Yes, the film heavily uses all the sporting clichés from the ailing player, the us against the world mentality, the team of misfits, and so on all of which combines to offer little cinematic tension as it is very clear early on and from the ads where this film will end up.
Despite tipping their hand early and throughout, the filmmakers have decided not to rock the boat and have stuck with a tried and true formula that results with a winning albeit very predictable film.
Lucas does a solid job in the roll and makes the best of the material he has to work with. The game sequences are well managed and rousing which had members of my preview audience cheering.
While it offers little originality, Glory Road is a lot of fun, and despite mining every cliché in the book, is an entertaining time at the movies.
In the new film Glory Road Josh Lucas stars as Don Haskins, a girls Basketball coach who is given the chance to coach a Division 1 team at Texas Western in 1966.
The small school cannot offer the coach much in the way of amenities as Don and his family are required to live in the student’s dorm. Since his dreams of playing pro ball came to a halt after a knee injury, Haskins looks at his job as a chance for him to make a name for himself.
The task will be daunting as Texas Western is a very small school that puts the majority of its athletic budget into the football program leaving next to no money for the gym, new equipment, and recruiting of players.
After a frustrating attempt to recruit players at a local invitational, Haskins sets his sites on a young African American player who while big on attitude, is also big on potential.
With scholarships to offer, Haskins and his staff travel the nation and shock the conservative school by offering scholarships to 8 African American players. In a day and age when teams had at most 1-2 African American players; many of whom did not see much playing time; this is a risky move for the coach.
Undaunted, the coach begins the process of integrating his new players with his current players all of whom are Caucasian, which leads to some tension over starting rights, abilities, and styles.
Haskins is a no nonsense coach who is very strict in regards to grades, effort in practice, and above all avoiding late nights and carousing while the season is underway. Despite this, many players decide to test the will of the coach which raises issues of commitment to the team and discipline, all of which are standard staples of sports films.
When the season starts, a funny thing happens. Not only is the coach playing his African American players in a heavy rotation, but little Texas Western is winning their games and beating some of the more noted teams in the country in the process.
As their notoriety increases so does the amount of hostility directed towards the team from racially incensed fans who do not like the make up of the team and especially hate their success.
Despite this, the team finds itself in the National Championship game against powerful Kentucky coached by the legendary Adolph Rupp (Jon Voight), where Haskins makes history by starting and playing only his African American players which is a first in NCAA finals history.
While the marketing and trailers for the film certainly do not hesitate from telling you most of the above and underscoring that the team ends up in the finals and that the film is based on a true story, it is not about the final results, it is about the journey the team took getting there.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer is a master at knowing what the fans want and director James Gartner gives viewers a by the number film that delivers the goods. Yes, the film heavily uses all the sporting clichés from the ailing player, the us against the world mentality, the team of misfits, and so on all of which combines to offer little cinematic tension as it is very clear early on and from the ads where this film will end up.
Despite tipping their hand early and throughout, the filmmakers have decided not to rock the boat and have stuck with a tried and true formula that results with a winning albeit very predictable film.
Lucas does a solid job in the roll and makes the best of the material he has to work with. The game sequences are well managed and rousing which had members of my preview audience cheering.
While it offers little originality, Glory Road is a lot of fun, and despite mining every cliché in the book, is an entertaining time at the movies.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Saving Mr. Banks (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the greatest Disney classics, “Mary Poppins” has a unique history on its long journey from the page to the silver screen. In “Saving Mr. Banks”, the twenty year battle between Walt Disney and the notoriously difficult author is told in a touching and gripping tale.
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Blades of Glory (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Chazz Michael Michaels (Will Ferrell), and Jimmy MacElroy (Jon Heder), are as opposite as two men can be. Chazz is loud, boisterous, and highly sexual, whereas Jimmy is soft, artistic, and reserved.
In the new comedy Blades of Glory the two rivals are about to become the talk of their sport when both lose their medals and are banned from competitive skating after an on ice incident shortly after they tie for the gold medal.
While both are devastated by the events, Jimmy has an even higher cost to pay as his adoptive father disowns him since he is no longer a star athlete who will bring him fame an attention.
Flash forward 3.5 years and we find that life has not been easy for the former two stars. Jimmy toils away in a sporting good shop, while Chazz is reduced to playing a masked character in a themed ice show.
Fate steps in when a stalker informs Jimmy that he is only banned from singles skating and is able to compete in pairs competitions. With the signup for qualifications two days away, Jimmy heads to a local ice show in hopes of finding a partner for the competition.
Sadly Jimmy has chosen the same show were Chazz works, and the two bitter rivals soon find themselves fighting once again.
When the footage makes the local news, Jimmy’s old coach (Craig T. Nelson), hits upon the idea of having the two men compete as the first male team in skating history.
Naturally the two men hate the idea, but with a deadline looming and no other options, Chazz and Jimmy begin to train.
As shocking as this turn of events is to the sporting world, it draws the ire of the reigning champions the Van Waldenberg’s (Will Arnett and Amy Poehler), who setout to ruin Jimmy and Chazz so they can once again capture the gold.
As they train, one hilarious situation after another arises, as the two men with vastly different lifestyles and outlooks must find a way to work with one another to recapture their former glory.
At first I was worried that the films premise would grow old after a few minutes, but I am happy to say it did not. The film is very silly and filled with juvenile humor, but has an easygoing charm that makes it a fun if forgettable film.
Heder and Ferrell work well with one another, and their skating sequences have some truly funny and inspired moments. I do not think I will soon forget the look on Chazz’s face when he has to lift Jimmy one handed while balancing him in a sensitive area.
The film will not be confused anytime soon for a comedic work of genius, but if you want some laughs and are not expecting a deep plot or characters, then this film may be what you are looking for.
In the new comedy Blades of Glory the two rivals are about to become the talk of their sport when both lose their medals and are banned from competitive skating after an on ice incident shortly after they tie for the gold medal.
While both are devastated by the events, Jimmy has an even higher cost to pay as his adoptive father disowns him since he is no longer a star athlete who will bring him fame an attention.
Flash forward 3.5 years and we find that life has not been easy for the former two stars. Jimmy toils away in a sporting good shop, while Chazz is reduced to playing a masked character in a themed ice show.
Fate steps in when a stalker informs Jimmy that he is only banned from singles skating and is able to compete in pairs competitions. With the signup for qualifications two days away, Jimmy heads to a local ice show in hopes of finding a partner for the competition.
Sadly Jimmy has chosen the same show were Chazz works, and the two bitter rivals soon find themselves fighting once again.
When the footage makes the local news, Jimmy’s old coach (Craig T. Nelson), hits upon the idea of having the two men compete as the first male team in skating history.
Naturally the two men hate the idea, but with a deadline looming and no other options, Chazz and Jimmy begin to train.
As shocking as this turn of events is to the sporting world, it draws the ire of the reigning champions the Van Waldenberg’s (Will Arnett and Amy Poehler), who setout to ruin Jimmy and Chazz so they can once again capture the gold.
As they train, one hilarious situation after another arises, as the two men with vastly different lifestyles and outlooks must find a way to work with one another to recapture their former glory.
At first I was worried that the films premise would grow old after a few minutes, but I am happy to say it did not. The film is very silly and filled with juvenile humor, but has an easygoing charm that makes it a fun if forgettable film.
Heder and Ferrell work well with one another, and their skating sequences have some truly funny and inspired moments. I do not think I will soon forget the look on Chazz’s face when he has to lift Jimmy one handed while balancing him in a sensitive area.
The film will not be confused anytime soon for a comedic work of genius, but if you want some laughs and are not expecting a deep plot or characters, then this film may be what you are looking for.
COBUILD Advanced English
Reference and Education
App
Transform your English with COBUILD Advanced Learner’s Dictionary [8th edition]. Learn to use...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated The Robber Knight in Books
Sep 10, 2019
When you are fighting for the freedom of your people, falling in love with your enemy is not a great idea. Or is it? Ayla has to defend her castle and her people all on her own, with nobody to help her but a dark warrior she hates with all her heart.
Sir Reuben, the dreaded robber knight, has long been Ayla’s deadliest enemy. He has prayed on her and her people ever since her father fell ill, and she swore he would hang for his crimes. Now they are both trapped in her castle as the army of a far greater enemy approaches, and they have only one chance: stand together, or fall.
This book wasn’t bad, honestly. I’m a huge fan of historical fiction, and it had been awhile since I’ve read a medieval love story, so that was a nice change of pace.
The author is a historian, so there are a lot of little things in this book that you don’t see in a lot of other historical romance books. For instance,you can’t pull out arrows because there are often barbs attached to cause fatal wounds if pulled out. I did like learning about all of these facts. But sometimes Thier lets the historian in him gets the best of him, but more on that later.
Lady Ayla was a pretty interesting character. Headstrong and wise for her years, she is very noble and progressive. She has all of the makings for a great leader– with the exception of knowledge. I loved how kind and committed she was to her people and I love the fact that she has some spunk. I mean, if I’m getting robbed in the forest by this random stranger, then I hope I would swear him out too (of course, if I could beat him up and get away, then that’s even better, but Ayla doesn’t have much self-defense skills). But there were many times that she was annoying, like her insistence on being near battles, even before she started treating the sick. And how she tried to manage Sir Isenbard during battle. She had called on him for help because he was an experienced knight, and now she was questioning his commands and strategies in the heat of battle!
Mostly, though, I really did like Ayla. She defines the idea of nobility. With war inevitable, she’s willing to ride personally to the edges of her land to warn her subjects and she is always at the outskirts of battle to help care for the wounded. She invites everyone into the castle for their safety and rations herself as well as the others to conserve food. She’s even willing to corrupt herself to save her people.
Reuben is an excellent character as well, although it did take me awhile to like him. In the beginning he fell a little flat. It’s clear that he used to be a knight but something happened and now he robs people for his own greed. A near-death experience and being saved by Lady Ayla reawakens the humanity in him. And apparently also some depth.
In the beginning of the book he spends a lot of his time admiring his loot and laughing about his victims, who thought they had a right to steal from him. But that’s all he does. We have no real insight into his character or backstory until after he’s in Ayla’s care. Only then are there hints of a bad history where he had been arrested many times, been tortured, and had at one point been a member of respectable society. If it weren’t for the fact that I liked Ayla’a character and the plot so far, I probably would have stopped reading.
Thier is a writer who has really good potential in becoming a great romance writer, especially for historical fiction. The plots have some unique twists that are augmented by his knowledge of history and after Reuben’s character shaped up, he was an excellent love interest. But there is one huge problem with this story: the footnotes.
There are so many footnotes throughout most of the book that I feel like I’m reading a history textbook, which is not good when I usually read romance novels to take a break from homework. Not only are they distracting and unnecessary, but they are also rude and condescending. Sure, sometimes they were useful, like in explaining the references to the seven princes of hell. Another one was a pretty funny anecdote about how one of his readers had actually confirmed that lard burns and that burning arrows work because they had actually done it. There is also a lot of wit throughout the footnotes which is pretty amusing. But most of the time, they were annoying.
For instance, Robert Thier thought it was necessary to include a footnote about how witches were considered bad during medieval times. Seriously? Even if someone failed history, we know that witches are not considered fine, upstanding citizens. Or maybe he thinks all of us have been locked in our rooms with no books, internet or television for our entire lives and for the month of October we all miraculously fell into a coma so we couldn’t see the giant blow-up witch in the neighbor’s yard. And then we’d all wake up singing Christmas carols after the month long coma without a care in the world because this happens every year so we don’t know what a witch is. (I’m developing a conspiracy theory about how these strange comas was caused by witchcraft.)
Maybe Thier assumed that instead of us thinking Reuben was scared of witches when he wondered if Ayla was one, we just thought he was commenting on how much Ayla looked like Sandra Bullock.
And one of the footnotes was just plain offensive. Here is the line of text that the footnote is attached to: “Heel! Abominable villain! You dare defy me?” (page 74)
Now, here’s the footnote: “Sorry to disappoint the ladies, but this doesn’t refer to high heels. It is a medieval term for a very nasty person.”
Excuse me? Did you just assume that I thought it meant high heels and that would make me excited? What world do you live in?
Apparently he thinks “the ladies” are so dumb that we are incapable of taking context clues and we immediately think everything relates back to fashion. Maybe I didn’t know it meant “very nasty person”, but it’s pretty clear it’s a swear or insult of sometime, not a freaking Jimmy Choo. Does he just imagine us thinking high heel every time we hear the word?
“She broke his nose with the heel of her hand.” Oh. High heel!
“Heel, fido! I said heel!” Oh. High heel!
“It will take one or two days for your cut to heal.” Oh. High heel! (Because if he thinks we don’t understand the difference between uncomfortable footwear and an insult, then he probably thinks we can’t spell, either).
But hey, at least Robert Thier thinks women can memorize stuff, because the footnote links stop as the vocabulary is repeated instead of new terms being introduced.
Aside from the footnotes, I really do like this book, and I can’t wait to read the second part of it, which I’ll read soon. Thier still has a long way to go, but I think after he has more experience, he’ll write some great books.
Sir Reuben, the dreaded robber knight, has long been Ayla’s deadliest enemy. He has prayed on her and her people ever since her father fell ill, and she swore he would hang for his crimes. Now they are both trapped in her castle as the army of a far greater enemy approaches, and they have only one chance: stand together, or fall.
This book wasn’t bad, honestly. I’m a huge fan of historical fiction, and it had been awhile since I’ve read a medieval love story, so that was a nice change of pace.
The author is a historian, so there are a lot of little things in this book that you don’t see in a lot of other historical romance books. For instance,you can’t pull out arrows because there are often barbs attached to cause fatal wounds if pulled out. I did like learning about all of these facts. But sometimes Thier lets the historian in him gets the best of him, but more on that later.
Lady Ayla was a pretty interesting character. Headstrong and wise for her years, she is very noble and progressive. She has all of the makings for a great leader– with the exception of knowledge. I loved how kind and committed she was to her people and I love the fact that she has some spunk. I mean, if I’m getting robbed in the forest by this random stranger, then I hope I would swear him out too (of course, if I could beat him up and get away, then that’s even better, but Ayla doesn’t have much self-defense skills). But there were many times that she was annoying, like her insistence on being near battles, even before she started treating the sick. And how she tried to manage Sir Isenbard during battle. She had called on him for help because he was an experienced knight, and now she was questioning his commands and strategies in the heat of battle!
Mostly, though, I really did like Ayla. She defines the idea of nobility. With war inevitable, she’s willing to ride personally to the edges of her land to warn her subjects and she is always at the outskirts of battle to help care for the wounded. She invites everyone into the castle for their safety and rations herself as well as the others to conserve food. She’s even willing to corrupt herself to save her people.
Reuben is an excellent character as well, although it did take me awhile to like him. In the beginning he fell a little flat. It’s clear that he used to be a knight but something happened and now he robs people for his own greed. A near-death experience and being saved by Lady Ayla reawakens the humanity in him. And apparently also some depth.
In the beginning of the book he spends a lot of his time admiring his loot and laughing about his victims, who thought they had a right to steal from him. But that’s all he does. We have no real insight into his character or backstory until after he’s in Ayla’s care. Only then are there hints of a bad history where he had been arrested many times, been tortured, and had at one point been a member of respectable society. If it weren’t for the fact that I liked Ayla’a character and the plot so far, I probably would have stopped reading.
Thier is a writer who has really good potential in becoming a great romance writer, especially for historical fiction. The plots have some unique twists that are augmented by his knowledge of history and after Reuben’s character shaped up, he was an excellent love interest. But there is one huge problem with this story: the footnotes.
There are so many footnotes throughout most of the book that I feel like I’m reading a history textbook, which is not good when I usually read romance novels to take a break from homework. Not only are they distracting and unnecessary, but they are also rude and condescending. Sure, sometimes they were useful, like in explaining the references to the seven princes of hell. Another one was a pretty funny anecdote about how one of his readers had actually confirmed that lard burns and that burning arrows work because they had actually done it. There is also a lot of wit throughout the footnotes which is pretty amusing. But most of the time, they were annoying.
For instance, Robert Thier thought it was necessary to include a footnote about how witches were considered bad during medieval times. Seriously? Even if someone failed history, we know that witches are not considered fine, upstanding citizens. Or maybe he thinks all of us have been locked in our rooms with no books, internet or television for our entire lives and for the month of October we all miraculously fell into a coma so we couldn’t see the giant blow-up witch in the neighbor’s yard. And then we’d all wake up singing Christmas carols after the month long coma without a care in the world because this happens every year so we don’t know what a witch is. (I’m developing a conspiracy theory about how these strange comas was caused by witchcraft.)
Maybe Thier assumed that instead of us thinking Reuben was scared of witches when he wondered if Ayla was one, we just thought he was commenting on how much Ayla looked like Sandra Bullock.
And one of the footnotes was just plain offensive. Here is the line of text that the footnote is attached to: “Heel! Abominable villain! You dare defy me?” (page 74)
Now, here’s the footnote: “Sorry to disappoint the ladies, but this doesn’t refer to high heels. It is a medieval term for a very nasty person.”
Excuse me? Did you just assume that I thought it meant high heels and that would make me excited? What world do you live in?
Apparently he thinks “the ladies” are so dumb that we are incapable of taking context clues and we immediately think everything relates back to fashion. Maybe I didn’t know it meant “very nasty person”, but it’s pretty clear it’s a swear or insult of sometime, not a freaking Jimmy Choo. Does he just imagine us thinking high heel every time we hear the word?
“She broke his nose with the heel of her hand.” Oh. High heel!
“Heel, fido! I said heel!” Oh. High heel!
“It will take one or two days for your cut to heal.” Oh. High heel! (Because if he thinks we don’t understand the difference between uncomfortable footwear and an insult, then he probably thinks we can’t spell, either).
But hey, at least Robert Thier thinks women can memorize stuff, because the footnote links stop as the vocabulary is repeated instead of new terms being introduced.
Aside from the footnotes, I really do like this book, and I can’t wait to read the second part of it, which I’ll read soon. Thier still has a long way to go, but I think after he has more experience, he’ll write some great books.
Alice (12 KP) rated The Countess Conspiracy (Brothers Sinister, #3) in Books
Jul 3, 2018
What happened? Something went wrong with The Countess Conspiracy and I’m not 100% sure what it was that made it go wrong. I’m about 85% sure that it was Violet Waterfield, the remaining 15% though no idea.
The Countess Conspiracy follows the story of Sebastian Malheur and Violet Waterfield – the two remaining members (honorary included)of the Brother’s Sinister. In previous books Sebastian has become reviled by most people due to his “crazed” notions on reproduction of plants and comparing them to Darwinism and proving the theory correct.
He started off as a joker before becoming infinitely more serious as the books progressed and I missed the funny side to him. Unfortunately spends the better part of this book serious and seems to lose himself in his and Violets plot.
∞
Now Violet is my main issue with this book. Throughout I wanted to pull the stick out of her butt and beat her over the head with it. She was stuck-up, prudish, overbearingly annoying, flat out rude and completely beyond any hope.
At about 50% I gave her the benefit of the doubt what with her history with her previous husband and the many many miscarriages but in the next chapter I wanted to beat her over the head to knock some sense into her again. She was awful and insufferable.
In the latter pages of the book she redeemed herself most highly but by that time I’d already resigned myself to the fact that this book would get a 3 star review and not a 4.
∞
I found that parts of the book were a little bit Americanised particularly towards the end and it felt a little too modernised at some stages which detracted from the regency part of the genre.
It wasn’t an overly bad instalment just one that I didn’t enjoy nearly as much as the previous ones. There were parts to the story that I didn’t like and the characters I had some issues with (Violet and her sister Lily) being the biggest ones but overall it was alright.
The only thing worse than an unlovable woman was an unlovable woman who whined about not being loved.
The above is something to do with Violet and her mother’s rules, the only thing was though was that Violet whined – and she whined a lot.
“I know.” He didn’t look away from her. “Isn’t that what I said? Only one of us is in love, and it isn’t you.”
God that quote from Sebastian near broke my heart. I felt so sorry for him – the man’s been in love with her for 16 years and he’s had no chance in hell of getting her.
A final parting quote:
Knitting makes even the most conniving soul look innocent. Her mother had it right. For some reason, butlers rarely suspected that a woman who had started knitting would stop and sneak about a house. Idiocy on their part; they were knitting needles, not shackles.
That is the quote that made me smile. It’s such a misplaced quote for the story but it’s still really good.
The Countess Conspiracy follows the story of Sebastian Malheur and Violet Waterfield – the two remaining members (honorary included)of the Brother’s Sinister. In previous books Sebastian has become reviled by most people due to his “crazed” notions on reproduction of plants and comparing them to Darwinism and proving the theory correct.
He started off as a joker before becoming infinitely more serious as the books progressed and I missed the funny side to him. Unfortunately spends the better part of this book serious and seems to lose himself in his and Violets plot.
∞
Now Violet is my main issue with this book. Throughout I wanted to pull the stick out of her butt and beat her over the head with it. She was stuck-up, prudish, overbearingly annoying, flat out rude and completely beyond any hope.
At about 50% I gave her the benefit of the doubt what with her history with her previous husband and the many many miscarriages but in the next chapter I wanted to beat her over the head to knock some sense into her again. She was awful and insufferable.
In the latter pages of the book she redeemed herself most highly but by that time I’d already resigned myself to the fact that this book would get a 3 star review and not a 4.
∞
I found that parts of the book were a little bit Americanised particularly towards the end and it felt a little too modernised at some stages which detracted from the regency part of the genre.
It wasn’t an overly bad instalment just one that I didn’t enjoy nearly as much as the previous ones. There were parts to the story that I didn’t like and the characters I had some issues with (Violet and her sister Lily) being the biggest ones but overall it was alright.
The only thing worse than an unlovable woman was an unlovable woman who whined about not being loved.
The above is something to do with Violet and her mother’s rules, the only thing was though was that Violet whined – and she whined a lot.
“I know.” He didn’t look away from her. “Isn’t that what I said? Only one of us is in love, and it isn’t you.”
God that quote from Sebastian near broke my heart. I felt so sorry for him – the man’s been in love with her for 16 years and he’s had no chance in hell of getting her.
A final parting quote:
Knitting makes even the most conniving soul look innocent. Her mother had it right. For some reason, butlers rarely suspected that a woman who had started knitting would stop and sneak about a house. Idiocy on their part; they were knitting needles, not shackles.
That is the quote that made me smile. It’s such a misplaced quote for the story but it’s still really good.
Steve Fearon (84 KP) rated Lake Placid (1999) in Movies
Sep 5, 2018
The Toothless Croc Adventure that bit off more than it could chew
If you are big horror fan, like I am, then you will no doubt have seen and loved Jaws at some point.
The spectacular fear of something huge and unseen in the water, a perfectly evolved marine predator capable of tremendous power and speed, with a jaw size capable of cutting you in half.
Jaws hit on a very primal fear, that there is an unreasoning, prehistoric simplicity to the shark, that reminds us that until the last few thousand years, we were just another form of food for many creatures on this planet, and that we could be again, in the right circumstances.
It is this fear that also informs our love of Zombie movies, our disgust at cannibals and keeps us watching endless episodes of dirty, tired-looking people arguing in 'The Walking Dead'.
Where Jaws created a whole genre of horror in 'Killer Shark' movies, their reptilian counterparts have had to make do with a somewhat less successful series of outings, with Alligator, Croc etc
They just haven't quite hit our imagination in the same way, whether that be because of their comical waddle on land, or having watched an excited Australian man jumping all over them on TV (RIP Steve Irwin)...
Regardless, Lake Placid is the one that most remember from recent history, and having listened to a 'Horrow Show' Podcast on the film recently, I mentioned to my better half I wouldn't mind seeing it again, to see if it is as bad as it sounded.
Well last night, said better half suggested we watch it and boy oh boy...
So first off, Brendan Gleeson was by far the best thing about this movie, his one liners and grumpy demeanor were, for long periods, the best thing about this movie, shortly followed by the hilarious Betty White.
Stan Winstone, legendary physical creature effects maestro turns in some great stuff, and when they are dealing withe the physical creature, it is very effective but all too often they resort to CGI, which is passable but still tends to take you out of the moment..
Oliver Platt's casting as a crocodile expert playboy is amusing at first, then confusing and eventually just...well not laughable exactly as it isnt very funny, but strange certainly.
The movie languishes for long periods, focusing on the incredibly inert chemistry between leading lady Fonda, and wooden cardboard cut out Pullman, giving you poorly written rom com scripts where we signed up to see a giant Croc eat people.
Long story short, this movie is light on tension and action, heavy on clumsy exposition and strange casting choices, and it a poor relation to Jaws, which is more worthy of your time.
The spectacular fear of something huge and unseen in the water, a perfectly evolved marine predator capable of tremendous power and speed, with a jaw size capable of cutting you in half.
Jaws hit on a very primal fear, that there is an unreasoning, prehistoric simplicity to the shark, that reminds us that until the last few thousand years, we were just another form of food for many creatures on this planet, and that we could be again, in the right circumstances.
It is this fear that also informs our love of Zombie movies, our disgust at cannibals and keeps us watching endless episodes of dirty, tired-looking people arguing in 'The Walking Dead'.
Where Jaws created a whole genre of horror in 'Killer Shark' movies, their reptilian counterparts have had to make do with a somewhat less successful series of outings, with Alligator, Croc etc
They just haven't quite hit our imagination in the same way, whether that be because of their comical waddle on land, or having watched an excited Australian man jumping all over them on TV (RIP Steve Irwin)...
Regardless, Lake Placid is the one that most remember from recent history, and having listened to a 'Horrow Show' Podcast on the film recently, I mentioned to my better half I wouldn't mind seeing it again, to see if it is as bad as it sounded.
Well last night, said better half suggested we watch it and boy oh boy...
So first off, Brendan Gleeson was by far the best thing about this movie, his one liners and grumpy demeanor were, for long periods, the best thing about this movie, shortly followed by the hilarious Betty White.
Stan Winstone, legendary physical creature effects maestro turns in some great stuff, and when they are dealing withe the physical creature, it is very effective but all too often they resort to CGI, which is passable but still tends to take you out of the moment..
Oliver Platt's casting as a crocodile expert playboy is amusing at first, then confusing and eventually just...well not laughable exactly as it isnt very funny, but strange certainly.
The movie languishes for long periods, focusing on the incredibly inert chemistry between leading lady Fonda, and wooden cardboard cut out Pullman, giving you poorly written rom com scripts where we signed up to see a giant Croc eat people.
Long story short, this movie is light on tension and action, heavy on clumsy exposition and strange casting choices, and it a poor relation to Jaws, which is more worthy of your time.
EmersonRose (320 KP) rated The City of Shifting Waters (Valérian and Laureline, #1) in Books
Nov 20, 2019
On July 21, 2017, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets came out in theaters the U.S. After watching the movie I found myself intrigued by the characters, world, and the passion shown by the director and writer Luc Besson showed for the project. I took this interest and decided to start reading the comic books. Thus far I have been able to read three of the volumes, as they are French comics they are not usually kept in stores and I have to order them.
The Valerian and Laureline comics follow Valerian, a handsome and cocky time and space traveler, and Laureline, his stubborn and beautiful partner. They travel together across space and time on missions for Galaxity, the capital of the Terran Empire in the 28th century. They explore strange worlds with fascinating creatures, deal with complicated political situations, and take the reader through rewritten history.
I immediately fell in love with the comics for the same reasons I enjoyed the film. The first is that the world that author Pierre Christin and artist Jean-Claude Mezieres created is truly fantastical. It falls under the same sci-fi mixed with fantasy genre that Star Wars is under. The great space galaxy is full of planets that are home to a wide range of alien species, each with complicated politics, cultures, and aesthetics.
The second reason is that I love the relationship between Valerian and Laureline. I am a very character driven person in both my reading and writing so I am a sucker for a good relationship, romantic, familial, or friendship. Valerian and Laureline start the first comic playing chess. Valerian is cocky and does not like to lose, but he is kind and smart and works hard to make the world a better place. Laureline is funny, stubborn, and unlike Valerian, she does not feel the same sense of loyalty to the Terran Empire and therefore is okay with bending the rules to save the most people. They make for a great team, and their fun banter adds to the overall charm of the story.
7810429The first issue of the series was released in 1967 and ran till 2010. Initially, all were written in French but has since been translated into English and several other languages. This series plays with a lot of the sci-fi/fantasy tropes that make you fall in love with stories in the genre, and has even been compared to Star Wars as the basis for several of the ideas used in the Star Wars films, such as the look of some of the characters and situations characters find themselves in.
This is a fun and exciting comic series that got me into reading101694 comics in the first places. I will certainly be continuing my reading of these books so that I can continue being apart of the Valerian and Laureline story. I also enjoyed the film and hope that the passion the Luc Besson showed will be enough to allow him to make another film in the series.
I would highly recommend this series!
The Valerian and Laureline comics follow Valerian, a handsome and cocky time and space traveler, and Laureline, his stubborn and beautiful partner. They travel together across space and time on missions for Galaxity, the capital of the Terran Empire in the 28th century. They explore strange worlds with fascinating creatures, deal with complicated political situations, and take the reader through rewritten history.
I immediately fell in love with the comics for the same reasons I enjoyed the film. The first is that the world that author Pierre Christin and artist Jean-Claude Mezieres created is truly fantastical. It falls under the same sci-fi mixed with fantasy genre that Star Wars is under. The great space galaxy is full of planets that are home to a wide range of alien species, each with complicated politics, cultures, and aesthetics.
The second reason is that I love the relationship between Valerian and Laureline. I am a very character driven person in both my reading and writing so I am a sucker for a good relationship, romantic, familial, or friendship. Valerian and Laureline start the first comic playing chess. Valerian is cocky and does not like to lose, but he is kind and smart and works hard to make the world a better place. Laureline is funny, stubborn, and unlike Valerian, she does not feel the same sense of loyalty to the Terran Empire and therefore is okay with bending the rules to save the most people. They make for a great team, and their fun banter adds to the overall charm of the story.
7810429The first issue of the series was released in 1967 and ran till 2010. Initially, all were written in French but has since been translated into English and several other languages. This series plays with a lot of the sci-fi/fantasy tropes that make you fall in love with stories in the genre, and has even been compared to Star Wars as the basis for several of the ideas used in the Star Wars films, such as the look of some of the characters and situations characters find themselves in.
This is a fun and exciting comic series that got me into reading101694 comics in the first places. I will certainly be continuing my reading of these books so that I can continue being apart of the Valerian and Laureline story. I also enjoyed the film and hope that the passion the Luc Besson showed will be enough to allow him to make another film in the series.
I would highly recommend this series!