Search
Search results
We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of Jonbenet Ramsey Twenty Years Later
Book
New information from We Have Your Daughter has been revealed. Here is some of it. The Family As a...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hmm… must have splattered a lot”.
Maddy at Maddy Loves Her Classic Films is hosting The Alfred Hitchcockblogathon. A fine idea, celebrating the life and works of the “Master of Suspense”. My contribution comes from his 1954 masterpiece “Rear Window” starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
Writing (3 more)
No character development
Too many inconsistencies
Too many chapters
Errin Stowell's new novel series starts with Covet Not which is about a middle-aged lawyer named Sam Sparks - - - who is referred to as Sparks nearly the entire story - - - whose fiancee goes missing and he then becomes the prime suspect. Before everything happens though, readers see that Sparks spends his time trying to defend the elderly from home foreclosures as a small-time lawyer.
If this sounds like a synopsis for a John Grisham novel, you wouldn't be far off because Stowell has the potential to be the next one. This is only the first novel I've read by Stowell, but the one thing I noticed mostly in this story was the amount of inconsistencies and amateur writing mistakes; with better editing and consistency, his books could very well hit mainstream.
Also, Covet Not had so many chapters, so much so that scenes were chopped in half and made into entirely new chapters. The book ended up having 48 chapters within 158 pages. This amount could have easily been shortened and helped with the flow of the story if Stowell had just continued onwards with scenes rather then cutting them short or just skipping parts completely.
The novel starts with a man called Skinny who is enjoying his growing infamy on the dark web (he records himself murdering women then uploads it for his audience to enjoy). Here is how Stowell describes Skinny's thought process:
" Skinny took a black ski mask from the duffel bag and put it on before carrying the bag into the camera's frame and placing it near the woman. He began unpacking other items from the bag. It was slow work, deliberately slow for the camera. Skinny intended to have a before and after view for each tool. It was important to show the proper use of tools. The viewers always appreciated that. "
When we switch over to Sparks, we find him after a long day of work, speaking with a journalist named Gina, his fiancee, who is telling him one of her co-workers stole her story, but no one has heard from her in two days. Yet, they both agree that she's probably holed up with one of the producers, and instead, get into a small argument about Sparks never supporting Gina - - - a constant habit of arguing is almost every interaction between the two throughout the entire novel.
Soon after, Sparks introduces us to his uncle Jimmy, who is being housed at a retirement home: " The old man was seated in a wheelchair; his left leg had been amputated just below the knee a few years before, the result of allowing an ingrown toenail to fester to gangrene. Jimmy's barrel chest and solid upper body contrasted with his wasting legs. "
As Sparks continues to visit his uncle in the retirement home, he keeps running into a cute nurse named Darlene, who quickly sets her sights on him. She goes so far out of her way to get Sparks and Gina to separate that she sends him nude photos of herself from a burner phone. Fortunately, Sparks has bigger fish to fry when he hears over his car radio that Gina's co-worker was now being treated as a missing person case, causing Sparks to quickly jump to the conclusion that Gina possibly was responsible for it.
However, Stowell throws in an expected curveball by making our villain, Skinny, work at the retirement home. When he comes in to take care of a patient while Sparks is present, it's too easy to guess that this patient was going to end up dead soon. Sparks, expectedly, has a bad feeling about this male nurse, but dismisses it and believes that the patient died by natural causes. Life goes on.
Stowell's novel, with a great plot, was just too focused on ending the story, that after page 50, it seemed as if Stowell didn't care what happened to these characters, just as long as he finished the book. At one point, readers are told that Sparks doesn't drink alcohol, but it's never explained why he doesn't which would have given a bite of character development; another scene, Sparks finds a phone, but doesn't want to give it to police, instead he states that he has a 'friend' in the police department who can go through it as a favor, but this 'friend' is completely forgotten, as if Sparks never mentioned him, and the former is left dumbfounded as to how to get into the phone.
There's a story here and characters that could be more well-rounded, but I honestly found myself not caring the least bit about any of the characters' well-being, especially Sparks - - - someone who comes off as inept, someone who has to be told what to do in order for anything to get done - - - he's like a lost child running blindly throughout the book. The story needs to be longer with more emphasis given to mundane scenes that will allow readers to chew on a piece of Sparks' daily life because, by the end of the book, we needed a full picture of every major character, not a Jackson Pollock.
If this sounds like a synopsis for a John Grisham novel, you wouldn't be far off because Stowell has the potential to be the next one. This is only the first novel I've read by Stowell, but the one thing I noticed mostly in this story was the amount of inconsistencies and amateur writing mistakes; with better editing and consistency, his books could very well hit mainstream.
Also, Covet Not had so many chapters, so much so that scenes were chopped in half and made into entirely new chapters. The book ended up having 48 chapters within 158 pages. This amount could have easily been shortened and helped with the flow of the story if Stowell had just continued onwards with scenes rather then cutting them short or just skipping parts completely.
The novel starts with a man called Skinny who is enjoying his growing infamy on the dark web (he records himself murdering women then uploads it for his audience to enjoy). Here is how Stowell describes Skinny's thought process:
" Skinny took a black ski mask from the duffel bag and put it on before carrying the bag into the camera's frame and placing it near the woman. He began unpacking other items from the bag. It was slow work, deliberately slow for the camera. Skinny intended to have a before and after view for each tool. It was important to show the proper use of tools. The viewers always appreciated that. "
When we switch over to Sparks, we find him after a long day of work, speaking with a journalist named Gina, his fiancee, who is telling him one of her co-workers stole her story, but no one has heard from her in two days. Yet, they both agree that she's probably holed up with one of the producers, and instead, get into a small argument about Sparks never supporting Gina - - - a constant habit of arguing is almost every interaction between the two throughout the entire novel.
Soon after, Sparks introduces us to his uncle Jimmy, who is being housed at a retirement home: " The old man was seated in a wheelchair; his left leg had been amputated just below the knee a few years before, the result of allowing an ingrown toenail to fester to gangrene. Jimmy's barrel chest and solid upper body contrasted with his wasting legs. "
As Sparks continues to visit his uncle in the retirement home, he keeps running into a cute nurse named Darlene, who quickly sets her sights on him. She goes so far out of her way to get Sparks and Gina to separate that she sends him nude photos of herself from a burner phone. Fortunately, Sparks has bigger fish to fry when he hears over his car radio that Gina's co-worker was now being treated as a missing person case, causing Sparks to quickly jump to the conclusion that Gina possibly was responsible for it.
However, Stowell throws in an expected curveball by making our villain, Skinny, work at the retirement home. When he comes in to take care of a patient while Sparks is present, it's too easy to guess that this patient was going to end up dead soon. Sparks, expectedly, has a bad feeling about this male nurse, but dismisses it and believes that the patient died by natural causes. Life goes on.
Stowell's novel, with a great plot, was just too focused on ending the story, that after page 50, it seemed as if Stowell didn't care what happened to these characters, just as long as he finished the book. At one point, readers are told that Sparks doesn't drink alcohol, but it's never explained why he doesn't which would have given a bite of character development; another scene, Sparks finds a phone, but doesn't want to give it to police, instead he states that he has a 'friend' in the police department who can go through it as a favor, but this 'friend' is completely forgotten, as if Sparks never mentioned him, and the former is left dumbfounded as to how to get into the phone.
There's a story here and characters that could be more well-rounded, but I honestly found myself not caring the least bit about any of the characters' well-being, especially Sparks - - - someone who comes off as inept, someone who has to be told what to do in order for anything to get done - - - he's like a lost child running blindly throughout the book. The story needs to be longer with more emphasis given to mundane scenes that will allow readers to chew on a piece of Sparks' daily life because, by the end of the book, we needed a full picture of every major character, not a Jackson Pollock.
Cumberland (1142 KP) created a post in The Smashbomb Book Club
Jun 13, 2019
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2020 (Updated Jan 8, 2020)
With media currently showing us scenes of disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as he shuffles into court, expecting sympathy while his victims continue to try and rebuild their lives, along comes the timely release of Bombshell. Based on a high profile #MeToo scandal, Bombshell gives us a look deep inside the heart of Fox News, and tells the explosive story of the women who fought back against the powerful man who created it.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated The Book of Kings in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – The Book of Kings Has a Few Gems and a Few Warts
Contains spoilers, click to show
Unlike other short story anthologies I could mention, this one wasn’t mostly horrible. Instead, the stories inside run the gamut from stupid to brilliant and from annoying to nothing special to fun and memorable. A little something for everyone, then.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.