Search
Search results
The Warmth of Other Suns
Book
From the winner of the Pulitzer Prize, this is one of the great untold stories of American history:...
Into That Darkness
Book
The biography of Franz Stangl, commandant of the Treblinka extermination camp - a classic and...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Not really a "Rambo" flick...but kind of is (if you squint)...
The "final" installment in the Sylvester Stallone as John Rambo series of films (the 5th!) RAMBO: LAST BLOOD is one of those hybrid type of films that is really two 45-50 minute films put together to give you one 1 hour, 45 minute adventure. These two film-ettes are clear throwbacks to 2 other films.
"Oh...you say...they are paying homage to previous RAMBO films, like the first one FIRST BLOOD and the best one RAMBO..." and...that would make sense and give a reason for this character to re-emerge, but this is NOT what is happening here.
The first half of this film has been done better as the Liam Neeson film TAKEN while the 2nd half of this film is a clear homage to HOME ALONE - or as I call it BLOODY HOME ALONE. So, instead of the crooks being comically hurt, they are dismembered, disemboweled, be-headed and run through the middle with pointy stuff.
All with lots and lots of blood spurting everywhere.
Inexplicably, Sylvester Stallone agreed to revise his John Rambo personae after 11 years away from it and he is showing every moment of his 73 years of age in this role. To say that Stallone is a little "long in the tooth" for this type of action/beat 'em up role would be doing a disservice to the term "long in the tooth".
As is fairly typical in these types of films, the plot is fairly straightforward - John Rambo is living a peaceful existence until someone close to him is kidnapped by bad guys south of the border, so Rambo goes in search of her (that's the first half of the film - the TAKEN portion). And...this part of the film is...okay (just...okay). The "good guys" around Rambo are nice (enough) and he is joined by a crusading journalist who also has had someone kidnapped so you think he might be joined by a ragtag group of "frenemies" to fight a common enemy...but...Rambo goes in "mano a mano" (this is a Stallone/Rambo film after all) and this part of the film, ultimately, fails to deliver the goods and falls flat.
Director Adrian Grunberg (the immortal GET THE GRINGO...yeah, I've never heard of it, either) sets up at the beginning of this movie some interesting side characters (the journalist, the one time bad guy who is now out of the bad guy business and might have a redemption-type arc, the plucky teenager) and some interesting character traits (PTSD, Concussion symptoms) that our hero is suffering from. All of these elements should have/could have been utilized to bring some interesting twists to the action scenes - but they are all quickly...and promptly...dropped to show Stallone being macho and killing bad guys on his way to fulfilling the goal of the first half of the film.
And then comes the 2nd half.
The bad guys come to Rambo's Ranch to exact some revenge (I can see a bobby-trapped Halloween-type walk through haunted house coming to a corn field near you this fall). Any pretense of plot, character development, etc. is gone in a hot minute as this part of the film is all about the bloody Home Alone-type booby-traps at the ranch. Wanna see someone get a pitchfork to the face? Check! Wanna see someone get their arm chopped off with a machete? Check! How about falling through a trap door onto some spikes? You got it! And it just gets bigger, bloodier and more comedicly-"awesome-gruesome" as we go. If you enjoy this type of thing (and...I gotta admit...I do) then this is pretty entertaining.
Ridiculous? Yes. Is Stallone too old for this type of film? Yes. Over-the-top? Of course. A good film with strong characters? Heck no.
But that's not what we came to see. If you can get through the fairly slow (and poorly written) first half of this film, the 2nd half is bloody good fun.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10 - just know what kind of film you are watching) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
"Oh...you say...they are paying homage to previous RAMBO films, like the first one FIRST BLOOD and the best one RAMBO..." and...that would make sense and give a reason for this character to re-emerge, but this is NOT what is happening here.
The first half of this film has been done better as the Liam Neeson film TAKEN while the 2nd half of this film is a clear homage to HOME ALONE - or as I call it BLOODY HOME ALONE. So, instead of the crooks being comically hurt, they are dismembered, disemboweled, be-headed and run through the middle with pointy stuff.
All with lots and lots of blood spurting everywhere.
Inexplicably, Sylvester Stallone agreed to revise his John Rambo personae after 11 years away from it and he is showing every moment of his 73 years of age in this role. To say that Stallone is a little "long in the tooth" for this type of action/beat 'em up role would be doing a disservice to the term "long in the tooth".
As is fairly typical in these types of films, the plot is fairly straightforward - John Rambo is living a peaceful existence until someone close to him is kidnapped by bad guys south of the border, so Rambo goes in search of her (that's the first half of the film - the TAKEN portion). And...this part of the film is...okay (just...okay). The "good guys" around Rambo are nice (enough) and he is joined by a crusading journalist who also has had someone kidnapped so you think he might be joined by a ragtag group of "frenemies" to fight a common enemy...but...Rambo goes in "mano a mano" (this is a Stallone/Rambo film after all) and this part of the film, ultimately, fails to deliver the goods and falls flat.
Director Adrian Grunberg (the immortal GET THE GRINGO...yeah, I've never heard of it, either) sets up at the beginning of this movie some interesting side characters (the journalist, the one time bad guy who is now out of the bad guy business and might have a redemption-type arc, the plucky teenager) and some interesting character traits (PTSD, Concussion symptoms) that our hero is suffering from. All of these elements should have/could have been utilized to bring some interesting twists to the action scenes - but they are all quickly...and promptly...dropped to show Stallone being macho and killing bad guys on his way to fulfilling the goal of the first half of the film.
And then comes the 2nd half.
The bad guys come to Rambo's Ranch to exact some revenge (I can see a bobby-trapped Halloween-type walk through haunted house coming to a corn field near you this fall). Any pretense of plot, character development, etc. is gone in a hot minute as this part of the film is all about the bloody Home Alone-type booby-traps at the ranch. Wanna see someone get a pitchfork to the face? Check! Wanna see someone get their arm chopped off with a machete? Check! How about falling through a trap door onto some spikes? You got it! And it just gets bigger, bloodier and more comedicly-"awesome-gruesome" as we go. If you enjoy this type of thing (and...I gotta admit...I do) then this is pretty entertaining.
Ridiculous? Yes. Is Stallone too old for this type of film? Yes. Over-the-top? Of course. A good film with strong characters? Heck no.
But that's not what we came to see. If you can get through the fairly slow (and poorly written) first half of this film, the 2nd half is bloody good fun.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10 - just know what kind of film you are watching) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Nov 16, 2018
Foy is good - the rest is bland and boring
I, like many of you,was surprised to learn that there was a new "Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" film coming out. I thought, "do we need another one"? I got my answer.
We don't.
THE GIRL IN THE SPIDER'S WEB continues the story of crusading, crime-fighting, techno-punk computer hacker Lisbeth Salander as she continues on her journey to right the wrongs committed to women from no-good men. She is joined in her quest, once again, by journalist Mikael Bloomkvist.
Claire Foy (The Crown) takes over the title role and she is the ONLY thing in this film worth watching. Her Lisbeth is interesting, intense and doggedly-determined. Foy is a charismatic actress and this charisma comes off on the screen. Unfortunately, the other characters/actors that Foy is asked to play with (and off of) are bland, boring and very, very forgettable. Staring with Sverrir Gudnason as Bloomkvist. This character is supposed to by Lisbeth's partner and former lover, but there was no spark of recognition or connection between the two of them and this fellow could have been ANYBODY. Sylvia Hoeks, Adreja Pejic and even Vicky Krieps (so interesting in THE PHANTOM THREAD) were all disposable and interchangeable. Only Stephen Merchant (in a serious role) and Lakeith Stanfield showed any spark of interest.
The plot of this film didn't help matters either. Where the first GIRL IN THE DRAGON TATOO is a very intimate, very personal story, SPIDER'S WEB is bigger and broader (almost entering into James Bond territory) making the stakes superficial and phony (even though the plot involved her sister and her father, which SHOULD make it VERY personal). Director Fede Alvarez (working from his own screenplay) also brings nothing to the table, visually, making this a very slow, very tedious slog, indeed.
But then, Foy/Salander shows up on the screen and interest increases - at least until she leaves the screen again.
Avoid this Spider's Web and go find the original Dragon Tatoo films.
Letter Grade B- (for Foy's performance)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
We don't.
THE GIRL IN THE SPIDER'S WEB continues the story of crusading, crime-fighting, techno-punk computer hacker Lisbeth Salander as she continues on her journey to right the wrongs committed to women from no-good men. She is joined in her quest, once again, by journalist Mikael Bloomkvist.
Claire Foy (The Crown) takes over the title role and she is the ONLY thing in this film worth watching. Her Lisbeth is interesting, intense and doggedly-determined. Foy is a charismatic actress and this charisma comes off on the screen. Unfortunately, the other characters/actors that Foy is asked to play with (and off of) are bland, boring and very, very forgettable. Staring with Sverrir Gudnason as Bloomkvist. This character is supposed to by Lisbeth's partner and former lover, but there was no spark of recognition or connection between the two of them and this fellow could have been ANYBODY. Sylvia Hoeks, Adreja Pejic and even Vicky Krieps (so interesting in THE PHANTOM THREAD) were all disposable and interchangeable. Only Stephen Merchant (in a serious role) and Lakeith Stanfield showed any spark of interest.
The plot of this film didn't help matters either. Where the first GIRL IN THE DRAGON TATOO is a very intimate, very personal story, SPIDER'S WEB is bigger and broader (almost entering into James Bond territory) making the stakes superficial and phony (even though the plot involved her sister and her father, which SHOULD make it VERY personal). Director Fede Alvarez (working from his own screenplay) also brings nothing to the table, visually, making this a very slow, very tedious slog, indeed.
But then, Foy/Salander shows up on the screen and interest increases - at least until she leaves the screen again.
Avoid this Spider's Web and go find the original Dragon Tatoo films.
Letter Grade B- (for Foy's performance)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Carma (21 KP) rated The Lemon Sisters (Wildstone, #3) in Books
Jun 17, 2019
I absolutely love reading Jill Shalvis books. She has the uncanny ability to get right into my head and thought process to lead me on an extraordinary adventure from the first page. The Lemon Sisters is no exception, with life quotes on every chapter and stories like popcorn farting, this is a true to life story.
Brooke and Mindy are the Lemon Sisters. Separated by time and distance, they each are settled into their own crazy lives. Brooke is busy adventure journalist who had a little hiccup in her career and Mindy is a mom to 3 wild kids. Mindy shows up and Brookes door and needs a break so Brooke agrees to take the kids home for a couple days to give Mindy the time she needs. Not wanting to mention to Mindy how close the edge Brooke was herself, she keeps her mouth shut and helps get Mindys life back on track.
Wildstone is a place Brooke never wanted to head back to, ever. She ran fast and far as soon as she could seven years ago and never looked back. Putting Garrett out of her every thought has been the hardest part of living away from home. This could get very interesting.
Garrett has lived next door to Mindy and Linc for years, he loves being a psuedo uncle to their 3 kids. Hes tried hard to keep Brooke from encroaching on his daily thoughts, but that has proven to be futile. Now with her next door again for who knows how long, his thoughts are no longer his own.
I love the flow of storylines from Brooke to Mindy to Linc and Garrett. Add in a quirky OCD like storyline with Brooke and her niece and you have a perfect flow of characters both main and secondary. Telling storylines within the main storyline including lines like Popcorn Farts and the cool quotes Ms. Shalvis puts at the beginning of chapters is just one of the many reasons I flock to books by this author. 5 out of 5 stars for a book I voluntarily read and reviewed without expectations. Wildstone hooked me again, toss me back and Ill get hooked again Im sure.
Brooke and Mindy are the Lemon Sisters. Separated by time and distance, they each are settled into their own crazy lives. Brooke is busy adventure journalist who had a little hiccup in her career and Mindy is a mom to 3 wild kids. Mindy shows up and Brookes door and needs a break so Brooke agrees to take the kids home for a couple days to give Mindy the time she needs. Not wanting to mention to Mindy how close the edge Brooke was herself, she keeps her mouth shut and helps get Mindys life back on track.
Wildstone is a place Brooke never wanted to head back to, ever. She ran fast and far as soon as she could seven years ago and never looked back. Putting Garrett out of her every thought has been the hardest part of living away from home. This could get very interesting.
Garrett has lived next door to Mindy and Linc for years, he loves being a psuedo uncle to their 3 kids. Hes tried hard to keep Brooke from encroaching on his daily thoughts, but that has proven to be futile. Now with her next door again for who knows how long, his thoughts are no longer his own.
I love the flow of storylines from Brooke to Mindy to Linc and Garrett. Add in a quirky OCD like storyline with Brooke and her niece and you have a perfect flow of characters both main and secondary. Telling storylines within the main storyline including lines like Popcorn Farts and the cool quotes Ms. Shalvis puts at the beginning of chapters is just one of the many reasons I flock to books by this author. 5 out of 5 stars for a book I voluntarily read and reviewed without expectations. Wildstone hooked me again, toss me back and Ill get hooked again Im sure.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Captain Hook: Villain or Victim in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/New-blog-banner-10.png"/>;
<b><i>Has it ever occurred to you that there might be another version to Peter Pan’s story? Would you want to see Captain Hook’s point of view? If so, then you will truly enjoy this lovely short read: Captain Hook: Villain or Victim by Ellwyn Autumn. </i></b>
I have always loved Peter Pan and this fairy tale is without a doubt my favourite fairy tale. The world is unique, and the story is amazing. Maybe Peter Pan was the reason I was always so in love with England. I will never know.
When Ellwyn introduced me to her book, I knew I had to have it. I had to read it and find out what Captain Hook’s story might be. The book is quite short, but full of adventures throughout. We follow the journalist, David J. Locke, who sails through the seas searching for Captain Hook. When he finally gets a clue, he dives into the story of Captain Hook and discovers truths that have never been told before.
Even though there were times when the Captain Hook’s story seems like a side-story to David J. Locke’s adventures, it was a pleasure to read it, and I read it in one sitting. The book keeps you interested throughout, and the fiction of the re-telling is quite smart and uniquely thought through. I am very happy that I read this book! I would recommend it to all of you that love retellings and love fairy tales.
A huge thank you to Ellwyn Autumn, for sending me a paperback copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/New-blog-banner-10.png"/>;
<b><i>Has it ever occurred to you that there might be another version to Peter Pan’s story? Would you want to see Captain Hook’s point of view? If so, then you will truly enjoy this lovely short read: Captain Hook: Villain or Victim by Ellwyn Autumn. </i></b>
I have always loved Peter Pan and this fairy tale is without a doubt my favourite fairy tale. The world is unique, and the story is amazing. Maybe Peter Pan was the reason I was always so in love with England. I will never know.
When Ellwyn introduced me to her book, I knew I had to have it. I had to read it and find out what Captain Hook’s story might be. The book is quite short, but full of adventures throughout. We follow the journalist, David J. Locke, who sails through the seas searching for Captain Hook. When he finally gets a clue, he dives into the story of Captain Hook and discovers truths that have never been told before.
Even though there were times when the Captain Hook’s story seems like a side-story to David J. Locke’s adventures, it was a pleasure to read it, and I read it in one sitting. The book keeps you interested throughout, and the fiction of the re-telling is quite smart and uniquely thought through. I am very happy that I read this book! I would recommend it to all of you that love retellings and love fairy tales.
A huge thank you to Ellwyn Autumn, for sending me a paperback copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
JT (287 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) is a softly spoken, overzealous university campus security guard whose heart is in the right place and is dedicated to his job – maybe a little too much.
When he discovers a backpack containing a pipe bomb at a celebratory music concert at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, his quick thinking saves countless lives. Unfortunately for Richard, he becomes the prime suspect in the investigation and with it, his life is turned upside down as he’s thrust into the media spotlight.
Directed by Clint Eastwood Richard Jewell follows in similar vein to films like American Sniper and The 15:17 to Paris where the central characters struggle with the media attention they receive in the aftermath of events.
The scene during the concert is recreated with meticulous precision and attention to detail and there is genuine tension as you realise that at any point the bomb is going to explode. The investigation is led by FBI agent Tom Shaw (Jon Hamm) who with little to go on places Richard in the spotlight and will stop at nothing to prove his guilt, using every trick in the book to get Richard to confess.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution journalist Kathy Scruggs played by Olivia Wilde was portrayed unfairly for implying that she traded sex for stories. Having died in 2001 she was not around to defend herself, which is a black mark for Eastwood on an otherwise very well directed film.
The journal ran the story much to the delight of Scruggs, but it painted Jewell as the villain causing considerable pain to him and his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates) who delivers another acting masterclass in her supporting role. Scruggs realised her error later on but it was too little too late as the damage to Jewell’s reputation had already been done.
One of the highlights of the film is the relationship between Richard and attorney Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell). It’s very heartwarming as Watson stood by him until the end even right up to the point of passing on that the real bomber, Eric Rudolph, had confessed to the crime. Richard Jewell is not a gripping film outside of the first half but it’s a powerful watch heightened by excellent acting.
When he discovers a backpack containing a pipe bomb at a celebratory music concert at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, his quick thinking saves countless lives. Unfortunately for Richard, he becomes the prime suspect in the investigation and with it, his life is turned upside down as he’s thrust into the media spotlight.
Directed by Clint Eastwood Richard Jewell follows in similar vein to films like American Sniper and The 15:17 to Paris where the central characters struggle with the media attention they receive in the aftermath of events.
The scene during the concert is recreated with meticulous precision and attention to detail and there is genuine tension as you realise that at any point the bomb is going to explode. The investigation is led by FBI agent Tom Shaw (Jon Hamm) who with little to go on places Richard in the spotlight and will stop at nothing to prove his guilt, using every trick in the book to get Richard to confess.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution journalist Kathy Scruggs played by Olivia Wilde was portrayed unfairly for implying that she traded sex for stories. Having died in 2001 she was not around to defend herself, which is a black mark for Eastwood on an otherwise very well directed film.
The journal ran the story much to the delight of Scruggs, but it painted Jewell as the villain causing considerable pain to him and his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates) who delivers another acting masterclass in her supporting role. Scruggs realised her error later on but it was too little too late as the damage to Jewell’s reputation had already been done.
One of the highlights of the film is the relationship between Richard and attorney Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell). It’s very heartwarming as Watson stood by him until the end even right up to the point of passing on that the real bomber, Eric Rudolph, had confessed to the crime. Richard Jewell is not a gripping film outside of the first half but it’s a powerful watch heightened by excellent acting.
ClareR (5726 KP) rated Frankissstein in Books
Aug 6, 2019
A novel with a lot to think about!
I feel a sense of satisfaction having finished this book. I loved it, and I can really see why it has made the Booker Prize longlist (2019).
It is set in two different timelines. The first begins in 1816 with Mary Shelley, Percy Shelley (actually, before they were married), Lord Byron, Mary’s stepsister and Byron’s lover, Claire Clairmont and Polidori, Byron’s doctor. During a particularly wet two weeks on Lake Geneva, Byron sets them all the task of writing a horror story. And so Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus is born.
In the modern day, we follow Ry Shelley, a transgender doctor, Victor Stein (a ‘mad’ scientist), Ron Lord (a very successful sexbot producer), Clare (a staunch Christian, who seems to be working undercover in the most unlikely places!) and Polly Dory (a journalist for Vanity Fair. Do you see what she did here? It took me a couple of ‘chapters’, sadly! This is the Frankenstein of the modern age. Where Mary Shelley was terrified at the idea of creating a living man from parts of the dead, Victor Stein in the present day wants to preserve the brains and thoughts of the dead - and it’s equally terrifying.
Mary Shelley and Ry Shelley are very similar (the same, but in different times?) characters, even though they are in two very different times. Mary is at the mercy of her female body - she falls pregnant and loses two babies before she has the third who survives. Ry is trying to change his body from female to male so that he has control over it. But society has very fixed ideas about these characters in both timelines.
It’s a very current book with mention of Brexit and Trump, but I think it will hold up well in the future because it is so well written, and it has a lot to say about society and gender.
I thoroughly enjoyed it - and now I’m going to go and find more books in Jeanette Wintersons back catalogue!
Many thanks to Penguin Random House/ Jonathan Cape and NetGalley for a copy of this book (which I actually went and bought as well - it needs to be sat on my bookshelf!)
It is set in two different timelines. The first begins in 1816 with Mary Shelley, Percy Shelley (actually, before they were married), Lord Byron, Mary’s stepsister and Byron’s lover, Claire Clairmont and Polidori, Byron’s doctor. During a particularly wet two weeks on Lake Geneva, Byron sets them all the task of writing a horror story. And so Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus is born.
In the modern day, we follow Ry Shelley, a transgender doctor, Victor Stein (a ‘mad’ scientist), Ron Lord (a very successful sexbot producer), Clare (a staunch Christian, who seems to be working undercover in the most unlikely places!) and Polly Dory (a journalist for Vanity Fair. Do you see what she did here? It took me a couple of ‘chapters’, sadly! This is the Frankenstein of the modern age. Where Mary Shelley was terrified at the idea of creating a living man from parts of the dead, Victor Stein in the present day wants to preserve the brains and thoughts of the dead - and it’s equally terrifying.
Mary Shelley and Ry Shelley are very similar (the same, but in different times?) characters, even though they are in two very different times. Mary is at the mercy of her female body - she falls pregnant and loses two babies before she has the third who survives. Ry is trying to change his body from female to male so that he has control over it. But society has very fixed ideas about these characters in both timelines.
It’s a very current book with mention of Brexit and Trump, but I think it will hold up well in the future because it is so well written, and it has a lot to say about society and gender.
I thoroughly enjoyed it - and now I’m going to go and find more books in Jeanette Wintersons back catalogue!
Many thanks to Penguin Random House/ Jonathan Cape and NetGalley for a copy of this book (which I actually went and bought as well - it needs to be sat on my bookshelf!)
The Man with the Branded Hand: The Life of Jonathan Walker, Abolitionist
Book
Sailing around the Florida Keys in 1844, forty-five-year-old Jonathan Walker had a price on his...
White Dresses: A Memoir of Love and Secrets, Mothers and Daughters
Book
In this riveting, poignant memoir of three generations of women and the white dresses that adorned...