Search
Search results
UF
Understanding Film Theory: 2017
Ruth Doughty and Christine Etherington-Wright
Book
Film theory has a reputation for being challenging. Often requiring time and effort to fully grasp...
Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated Clan of the Jersey Boys (Fangsters #1) in Books
Sep 6, 2019
DNF
I hate DNFs. I always feel bad for not finishing them but sometimes I just cant get into a story. I stopped at 38%.
Right. Well, I expected this to be betterthat sounds bad I knowbut I was expecting them to be these tough vampires who kicked arse while running an illegal empire. In a way it was, but it didnt seem bad-arse enough for me. Sure there were a few scenes with retribution/warnings handed out to people but I didnt feel it.
Another thing that got me was all the mention of family and its many members. Yeah I know families are important in Italian/Sicilian cultures but more people kept getting mentioned and I found myself getting confused. What with Anton and someone else being turned by one person and his dad and uncle turned by someone else and this guy turned by the brother of that guy making them cousins I got lost. It was a little too much for me to keep up with.
The relationship between Anton and Leo happened a little too fast for me to believe. Not the sexhes an attractive guy after allbut the love yous and how strong their feelings were after the one night they spent together. Or maybe I just missed something?
Its not a bad story, it was just a little different to what I normally read; the mobster/gangster bit anyway. If you like vampires, mobsters and m/m stories then you will probably like this.
I hate DNFs. I always feel bad for not finishing them but sometimes I just cant get into a story. I stopped at 38%.
Right. Well, I expected this to be betterthat sounds bad I knowbut I was expecting them to be these tough vampires who kicked arse while running an illegal empire. In a way it was, but it didnt seem bad-arse enough for me. Sure there were a few scenes with retribution/warnings handed out to people but I didnt feel it.
Another thing that got me was all the mention of family and its many members. Yeah I know families are important in Italian/Sicilian cultures but more people kept getting mentioned and I found myself getting confused. What with Anton and someone else being turned by one person and his dad and uncle turned by someone else and this guy turned by the brother of that guy making them cousins I got lost. It was a little too much for me to keep up with.
The relationship between Anton and Leo happened a little too fast for me to believe. Not the sexhes an attractive guy after allbut the love yous and how strong their feelings were after the one night they spent together. Or maybe I just missed something?
Its not a bad story, it was just a little different to what I normally read; the mobster/gangster bit anyway. If you like vampires, mobsters and m/m stories then you will probably like this.
1,500 Ringtones - Ringtone Deluxe Factory (Regular Edition)
Lifestyle
App
──────────────────── RINGTONE DELUXE FACTORY (REGULAR) the...
Surviving Ice (Burying Water, #4)
6.0
Rate It
Book
The nationally bestselling author of the Ten Tiny Breaths series and Burying Water—which Kirkus...
Darren (1599 KP) rated A History of Violence (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A History of Violence starts as we meet mild-mannered Tom Stall (Mortensen) working in his local diner with his own family, wide Edie (Bello) and child Jack (Holmes) and Sarah. One evening two men arrive in his diner trying to rob and kill the people inside, Tom’s quick thinking kills the criminals making him a local hero.
The act of heroism brings gangster Carl Fogarty (Harris) to town who claims Tom is from the criminal underworld hiding out with his older brother Richie (Hurt) waiting for him to return back to the criminal world.
Thoughts on A History of Violence
Characters – Tom Stall is a quiet man, running a diner having a loving family, he steps up to protect his customers and friends makes him a local hero. Now he has drawn a target on his chest with his past coming back to haunt him. Edie is the wife of Tom, she works in law bring home the bigger pay checks, she supports Tom, until she learns the truth and must decide where she stands with him. Carl Fogarty is the mysterious stranger that arrives in town claiming to know Tom from a previous life, he brings the danger back into Tom’s life with the past he wanted to run away from. Richie is the crime boss and brother to Tom, he has been searching for his brother for years and now sees the chance for the connection.
Performances – Viggo Mortensen is outstanding in this leading role we see how he keeps his character perfectly calm in everyday life and how the switch can make him a deadly killer, this is an ability that not everyone can achieve. Maria Bello is strong in her role as a woman unsure who her husband really is. Ed Harris and William Hurt in the supporting role are fantastic both take over the screen with their presence adding much needed tension to everything.
Story – The story here follows a mild-mannered man whose past comes back to haunt him after protect people he loves and cares about. This is almost like the story that follows up one of the gangster films where we see someone leave the life only to get drawn back years later against his will. The film like to use the idea of violence being the breaking point for relationships between husband & wife, father & son and two brothers which gets played out perfectly. There is an air of tension from start to finish in the film which leaves us only wanting to see where things would go next.
Thriller – The film uses the tension to keep us feeling uneasy through nearly each moment in the film never knowing what would happen next.
Settings – The film is set in a small town which Tom makes safe and happy, if would make sense for his character to be there too, it shows how media can expose anybody’s secret.
Scene of the Movie – The first crime rescue.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The bullying side which isn’t the most important thing we see.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best modern thrillers you will see, you have four stunning performances and shocks around each corner.
Overall: Stunning thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/10/21/viggo-mortensen-weekend-a-history-of-violence-2005/
The act of heroism brings gangster Carl Fogarty (Harris) to town who claims Tom is from the criminal underworld hiding out with his older brother Richie (Hurt) waiting for him to return back to the criminal world.
Thoughts on A History of Violence
Characters – Tom Stall is a quiet man, running a diner having a loving family, he steps up to protect his customers and friends makes him a local hero. Now he has drawn a target on his chest with his past coming back to haunt him. Edie is the wife of Tom, she works in law bring home the bigger pay checks, she supports Tom, until she learns the truth and must decide where she stands with him. Carl Fogarty is the mysterious stranger that arrives in town claiming to know Tom from a previous life, he brings the danger back into Tom’s life with the past he wanted to run away from. Richie is the crime boss and brother to Tom, he has been searching for his brother for years and now sees the chance for the connection.
Performances – Viggo Mortensen is outstanding in this leading role we see how he keeps his character perfectly calm in everyday life and how the switch can make him a deadly killer, this is an ability that not everyone can achieve. Maria Bello is strong in her role as a woman unsure who her husband really is. Ed Harris and William Hurt in the supporting role are fantastic both take over the screen with their presence adding much needed tension to everything.
Story – The story here follows a mild-mannered man whose past comes back to haunt him after protect people he loves and cares about. This is almost like the story that follows up one of the gangster films where we see someone leave the life only to get drawn back years later against his will. The film like to use the idea of violence being the breaking point for relationships between husband & wife, father & son and two brothers which gets played out perfectly. There is an air of tension from start to finish in the film which leaves us only wanting to see where things would go next.
Thriller – The film uses the tension to keep us feeling uneasy through nearly each moment in the film never knowing what would happen next.
Settings – The film is set in a small town which Tom makes safe and happy, if would make sense for his character to be there too, it shows how media can expose anybody’s secret.
Scene of the Movie – The first crime rescue.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The bullying side which isn’t the most important thing we see.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best modern thrillers you will see, you have four stunning performances and shocks around each corner.
Overall: Stunning thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/10/21/viggo-mortensen-weekend-a-history-of-violence-2005/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Sting (1973) in Movies
Mar 29, 2020
On my list of All Time Favorite Films
I'll come right out and say it - the 1973 Academy Award winning film for Best Picture, THE STING, is one of the greatest films of all time. It's well written, well acted, well directed with a memorable musical score and characters, situations, costumes and set design that become richer over time and through repeated viewings.
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Untouchables (1987) in Movies
Dec 16, 2020 (Updated Dec 16, 2020)
A little melodramatic
(not) Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Untouchables
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Feb 10, 2020
Better than Suicide Squad
I'm going to get in a lot of trouble for watching this film. I promised my friend we'd watch it when she finishes her night shifts in 2 weeks, but I was in the mood for watching something a little less intensely serious and more brainless, and this is pretty much what I got.
I hated Suicide Squad. Seriously I gave it a 2, so the best thing I can say is that this is at least a lot better than that. Mainly down to Margot Robbie and her endearing and enigmatic take on Harley. She was the best thing about Suicide Squad and it's the same here. She's the star of the show and brings a lot of the humour and fun. I did feel like a lot of the other female characters were sidelined more than they should have been which is a shame especially as the film is called Birds of Prey, and I'm really not sure what was going on with Ewan McGregor's over the top slimy gangster.
The plot is entertaining enough, the fight scenes and the soundtrack played along side them are very well done and it was these that mainly kept me going throughout - these are some pretty kickass women. When the action dropped and especially when Harley wasn't in a scene, it soon began to get very dull and tiresome.
Whilst overall this definitely isn't the best DC film (indeed the Wonder Woman 1984 trailer shown before this looked a lot more exciting), it's miles better than Suicide Squad and rather a relief not to see Jared Leto's Joker again.
I hated Suicide Squad. Seriously I gave it a 2, so the best thing I can say is that this is at least a lot better than that. Mainly down to Margot Robbie and her endearing and enigmatic take on Harley. She was the best thing about Suicide Squad and it's the same here. She's the star of the show and brings a lot of the humour and fun. I did feel like a lot of the other female characters were sidelined more than they should have been which is a shame especially as the film is called Birds of Prey, and I'm really not sure what was going on with Ewan McGregor's over the top slimy gangster.
The plot is entertaining enough, the fight scenes and the soundtrack played along side them are very well done and it was these that mainly kept me going throughout - these are some pretty kickass women. When the action dropped and especially when Harley wasn't in a scene, it soon began to get very dull and tiresome.
Whilst overall this definitely isn't the best DC film (indeed the Wonder Woman 1984 trailer shown before this looked a lot more exciting), it's miles better than Suicide Squad and rather a relief not to see Jared Leto's Joker again.
My Uncle Charlie
Book
If you lived on the notorious Canterbury Estate in the '40s and '50s, then you knew there was one...