Search
Search results
postapocalypticplayground (27 KP) rated Strange the Dreamer in Books
Mar 23, 2018
A dreamy read
When I first started reading Strange the Dreamer my first feeling was that I was in for something special. I have never read a Laini Taylor book before and I was immediately struck by her use of language and the writing style is almost musical with a lilting flow. The language is mature in nature and very different from what you would normally expect in a YA read. The story itself is told in 3rd person but moves between the two main characters, Lazlo and Sarai. Lazlo is a wonderful character, quiet and unnasuming but full of wild dreams about the lost city of Weep. The stories that fuelled his play as a young child become his lifes work as an adult, channeling his time into learning all he can of the city from scraps left behind in the library he finds as his workplace. He is wonderfully earnest, yet there is a fire in him – so when a delegation arrives that promises an answer to his dreams he comes out from his shadow, his lifes work given meaning. Sarai is also in a strange form of existence, one of only 5 surviving children of the citadel of Weep her life is sheltered and borderline to poverty. As with all children of the citadel, she has a power passed down from her parents, Sarai holds the power of dreams but as the daughter of the Godess of Despair her world becomes one of never ending nightmare.
When Sarai’s and Lazlo’s worlds collide within their dreams they start to unravel the truth behind all that took place in Weep and a mystery that has haunted both the residents of Weep iteslf and those who remain in the citadel. The world building is beautiful, the story is quite a slow burn, providing you with the minimal amount of information that you need to form a picture of what is happening. This makes the reveals all the more satisfying and really gives you a chance to understand the world and appriciate the depth of thought put into its creation.
The only downside to this approach is that for the most part I felt that the side characters got left behind. Whist time was spent on the others within the Citadel, I felt that those who were met by Lazlo during his journey were almost a side thought and they appeared just enough to progress the story. There were some members of Lazlo’s party that I was desperate to find out more about, and I felt that there was plenty of opportunity within the 500+ pages to accommodate this as some parts could have done with a little trimming; the delicious slowness treading a very fine line between frustratingly dull at times. There is a second book in the works, so maybe these characters may get there turn then, but from the ending i’m not sure that they will.
In summary I found Strange the Dreamer to be a wonderful read if not a little slow at times. It was so beautifully different to the fantasy I have been reading recently and I give this 4*
When Sarai’s and Lazlo’s worlds collide within their dreams they start to unravel the truth behind all that took place in Weep and a mystery that has haunted both the residents of Weep iteslf and those who remain in the citadel. The world building is beautiful, the story is quite a slow burn, providing you with the minimal amount of information that you need to form a picture of what is happening. This makes the reveals all the more satisfying and really gives you a chance to understand the world and appriciate the depth of thought put into its creation.
The only downside to this approach is that for the most part I felt that the side characters got left behind. Whist time was spent on the others within the Citadel, I felt that those who were met by Lazlo during his journey were almost a side thought and they appeared just enough to progress the story. There were some members of Lazlo’s party that I was desperate to find out more about, and I felt that there was plenty of opportunity within the 500+ pages to accommodate this as some parts could have done with a little trimming; the delicious slowness treading a very fine line between frustratingly dull at times. There is a second book in the works, so maybe these characters may get there turn then, but from the ending i’m not sure that they will.
In summary I found Strange the Dreamer to be a wonderful read if not a little slow at times. It was so beautifully different to the fantasy I have been reading recently and I give this 4*
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated Seven Dollar Paycheck by Arms Akimbo in Music
Jun 17, 2019
Arms Akimbo is a four-piece indie-rock band. Not too long ago, they released a heartfelt alternative tune, entitled, “Pitchfork”.
“I feel like the song is a letter to my band and my loved ones back home. I wanted to tell the people in my life that even though it’s not the easiest path that we’re on, it’s the right path and we’re not going to give up. We don’t play music because we want to. We play music because we have to. And, as we say in the song, ‘if we’re patient then we’ll make it eventually’.”
‘Pitchfork’ tells an interesting tale of a young musician who is out on the road, on tour in west New Mexico, very far away from a special woman who has his heart.
Apparently, it was hard for him to goodbye to her, and shortly after his departure, he felt that he had let her down. Her emotional wellbeing made him question if she will still want him when he returns home.
While on tour, he thinks about her text message which states how he always let love slip away. Deep down, he wishes she’s wrong about that statement.
Later, things aren’t the same and a tad bit quiet when they talk on the phone. Also, the thoughts of losing her and not fulfilling his musical goals scares him. But he remains patient and hopes that everything works out in his favor.
“I wrote ‘Pitchfork’ on a non-stop drive back to LA from Austin, Texas, after SXSW 2018. Facing the existential dread that comes with finishing a tour, I couldn’t help but think about the way that being a musician connects you with so many people while simultaneously being extremely isolating. Music is our form of communication to reach people who might be feeling the same way that we are and we use that to build a community. But functioning as a musician means being on the road and being away from the people that you care about. This dichotomy can be tough to balance.”
Arms Akimbo’s consists of Peter Schrupp (vocals, guitar), Chris Kalil (guitar, vocals), Matthew Sutton (drums), and Colin Boppell (bass).
They labeled their single ‘Pitchfork’ in reference to the lyrics at the end of the song.
The likable tune encourages those in the music industry to never give up. Also, it narrates the existential dread which comes with finishing a tour.
“The song was written in two parts, with the first section functioning almost like a tour diary, a vignette of our life on the road. The second part is more of a personal plea to my loved ones to stick by me on this journey. It’s also my attempt to explain why I have to play music and why it’s so deeply instilled into who I am.”
‘Pitchfork’ contains a relatable storyline, warm vocal tones, and summery instrumentation flavored with melodic guitars.
The song is featured on Arms Akimbo’s latest EP, entitled, “Seven Dollar Paycheck”.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/arms-akimbo-pitchfork/
“I feel like the song is a letter to my band and my loved ones back home. I wanted to tell the people in my life that even though it’s not the easiest path that we’re on, it’s the right path and we’re not going to give up. We don’t play music because we want to. We play music because we have to. And, as we say in the song, ‘if we’re patient then we’ll make it eventually’.”
‘Pitchfork’ tells an interesting tale of a young musician who is out on the road, on tour in west New Mexico, very far away from a special woman who has his heart.
Apparently, it was hard for him to goodbye to her, and shortly after his departure, he felt that he had let her down. Her emotional wellbeing made him question if she will still want him when he returns home.
While on tour, he thinks about her text message which states how he always let love slip away. Deep down, he wishes she’s wrong about that statement.
Later, things aren’t the same and a tad bit quiet when they talk on the phone. Also, the thoughts of losing her and not fulfilling his musical goals scares him. But he remains patient and hopes that everything works out in his favor.
“I wrote ‘Pitchfork’ on a non-stop drive back to LA from Austin, Texas, after SXSW 2018. Facing the existential dread that comes with finishing a tour, I couldn’t help but think about the way that being a musician connects you with so many people while simultaneously being extremely isolating. Music is our form of communication to reach people who might be feeling the same way that we are and we use that to build a community. But functioning as a musician means being on the road and being away from the people that you care about. This dichotomy can be tough to balance.”
Arms Akimbo’s consists of Peter Schrupp (vocals, guitar), Chris Kalil (guitar, vocals), Matthew Sutton (drums), and Colin Boppell (bass).
They labeled their single ‘Pitchfork’ in reference to the lyrics at the end of the song.
The likable tune encourages those in the music industry to never give up. Also, it narrates the existential dread which comes with finishing a tour.
“The song was written in two parts, with the first section functioning almost like a tour diary, a vignette of our life on the road. The second part is more of a personal plea to my loved ones to stick by me on this journey. It’s also my attempt to explain why I have to play music and why it’s so deeply instilled into who I am.”
‘Pitchfork’ contains a relatable storyline, warm vocal tones, and summery instrumentation flavored with melodic guitars.
The song is featured on Arms Akimbo’s latest EP, entitled, “Seven Dollar Paycheck”.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/arms-akimbo-pitchfork/
Ian Anderson recommended Alabama Blues/Passionate Blues by JB Lenoir in Music (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated In the Heights (2021) in Movies
Jul 18, 2021
I love me some musical action, so I'm not sure how I never knew this existed. Not to worry though, I was quickly reeducated.
Usnavi is saving up everything he can as he plans a future back in the Dominican Republic. Living at the centre of his neighbourhood, we join his story and the dramas of the community.
In The Heights dives into the stories in the hot spot of the community as a heatwave bears down on them. Families, friendships and business dealings, all come out of the woodwork as they try to cope with the heat... and it does all of that with some and dance thrown on top.
I know that Lin-Manuel Miranda is all the rage these days, but I don't enjoy the talky-singing that's a bit of a trademark. Here though, the jazzy beats and hip-swaying tunes really helped. Had I not been restricted by the fact I was in public and it's generally frowned upon to do it in the cinema, I would have been dancing. With that restriction though, it was dropped to toe-tapping and shimmying in my seat.
There's a lot of talent in the cast, though not all the singing was music to my ears. With so many cast members I'm not going to go into the individual performances because, while a handful of characters are bigger in the story, it's very much an ensemble piece. Together they have great chemistry, and those relationships shine because of it.
Choreography during the numbers is fantastic, and the use of space in and out of those moments worked well with the confined spaces. There's one scene in particular that was very inventive and (even though it gave me a vertigo wobble) it helped to make the song stand out from the others... though there's probably something in every song that I could pick out for the same reason.
Design of... everything... is great in In The Heights. There's not really a point where your eyes aren't darting about looking at the sets or following the performers. If there aren't awards in this film's future then I'd be surprised, it would have to be something epic that beat this.
I didn't have that previous connection with the theatre production, and I think that would definitely have helped matters. In the theatre setting the long runtime never feels like it's actually that long, you have the intermission and scenes are broken up by the nature of it being a live performance. 2 hours and 23 minutes isn't really that long in that context, and these days it's not even particularly long for a film. But as a film, I did feel its length. I'm also one of those people that goes to theatre productions and likes to see what peripheral characters are doing, and that's not something you can easily do in a film. I may listen to the soundtrack at some point, but I don't think I'm in any rush to rewatch In The Height even considering all the things I enjoyed about it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/in-heights-movie-review.html
Usnavi is saving up everything he can as he plans a future back in the Dominican Republic. Living at the centre of his neighbourhood, we join his story and the dramas of the community.
In The Heights dives into the stories in the hot spot of the community as a heatwave bears down on them. Families, friendships and business dealings, all come out of the woodwork as they try to cope with the heat... and it does all of that with some and dance thrown on top.
I know that Lin-Manuel Miranda is all the rage these days, but I don't enjoy the talky-singing that's a bit of a trademark. Here though, the jazzy beats and hip-swaying tunes really helped. Had I not been restricted by the fact I was in public and it's generally frowned upon to do it in the cinema, I would have been dancing. With that restriction though, it was dropped to toe-tapping and shimmying in my seat.
There's a lot of talent in the cast, though not all the singing was music to my ears. With so many cast members I'm not going to go into the individual performances because, while a handful of characters are bigger in the story, it's very much an ensemble piece. Together they have great chemistry, and those relationships shine because of it.
Choreography during the numbers is fantastic, and the use of space in and out of those moments worked well with the confined spaces. There's one scene in particular that was very inventive and (even though it gave me a vertigo wobble) it helped to make the song stand out from the others... though there's probably something in every song that I could pick out for the same reason.
Design of... everything... is great in In The Heights. There's not really a point where your eyes aren't darting about looking at the sets or following the performers. If there aren't awards in this film's future then I'd be surprised, it would have to be something epic that beat this.
I didn't have that previous connection with the theatre production, and I think that would definitely have helped matters. In the theatre setting the long runtime never feels like it's actually that long, you have the intermission and scenes are broken up by the nature of it being a live performance. 2 hours and 23 minutes isn't really that long in that context, and these days it's not even particularly long for a film. But as a film, I did feel its length. I'm also one of those people that goes to theatre productions and likes to see what peripheral characters are doing, and that's not something you can easily do in a film. I may listen to the soundtrack at some point, but I don't think I'm in any rush to rewatch In The Height even considering all the things I enjoyed about it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/in-heights-movie-review.html
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Sep 21, 2019
I wish I would've liked it more.
A married couple decide to take a vacation at a beach house. Their relaxation bliss is soon interrupted by four strangers who actually turn out to be evil counterparts or "doppelgangers" of the family who have come to torment them.
Each counterpart goes after their "normal" version in various ways including on the used power boat they had just purchased or having a conversation while sitting in their living room. Not known is why or who they are and what are their intentions. They family tried to take refuge at their neighbors home only to discover they met with their demise courtesy of their own set of demons hunting them.
The family eventually reunites and tried to escape, but are pursued. Several confrontations ensue at the beach where some carnage is executed by the demons and the family against each other.
Then the twist, kind of. A scene at the start of the film when the mother had a traumatic experience as a child getting separated from her family and finding her way into a hall of mirrors and seeing her other self as a child is explained. Truths you thought were truths end of being a lie or a different situation than you originally thought.
In trying to figure out a type for this film it is rather difficult. It is not particularly scary or gory. I suppose suspense/thriller would suit it best, but I'm not sure that is what writer/director Jordan Peele was going for. I liked the visuals, the acting, the musical score and some of the ideas, but not really the execution or the screenplay.
It had some jokes like the "Home Alone" reference and other scenes where the parents and children are together making fun of each other which were just not funny and took away from the tension.
My main problem with the script was the fact that the characters' actions were mostly not appropriate. No one seemed to be bothered by the fact that these other human/non humans existed and when family members, even children, begin performing heinous actions, they don't even seem to blink an eye. They also have to write in the scene where they try and call the police and they are unavailable.
I feel like there was a really great film in there somewhere, they just didn't get it quite right. The middle section dragged somewhat and the ending was interesting but didn't hold water the more you thought about it. I have no issue with a vague ending as long as it leaves you thinking and drawing your own conclusions; however, this film was vague not in a good way I think just due to a mediocre screenplay or maybe bad editing.
Peele certainly had his own big shoes t fill after getting a Best Picture nomination for his first film, Get Out. The box office and critical acclaim were paramount on that one.
Hopefully, he will rebound from this film and create something truly unique and interesting for his next effort. We certainly need more great horror writer/directors out there!
Each counterpart goes after their "normal" version in various ways including on the used power boat they had just purchased or having a conversation while sitting in their living room. Not known is why or who they are and what are their intentions. They family tried to take refuge at their neighbors home only to discover they met with their demise courtesy of their own set of demons hunting them.
The family eventually reunites and tried to escape, but are pursued. Several confrontations ensue at the beach where some carnage is executed by the demons and the family against each other.
Then the twist, kind of. A scene at the start of the film when the mother had a traumatic experience as a child getting separated from her family and finding her way into a hall of mirrors and seeing her other self as a child is explained. Truths you thought were truths end of being a lie or a different situation than you originally thought.
In trying to figure out a type for this film it is rather difficult. It is not particularly scary or gory. I suppose suspense/thriller would suit it best, but I'm not sure that is what writer/director Jordan Peele was going for. I liked the visuals, the acting, the musical score and some of the ideas, but not really the execution or the screenplay.
It had some jokes like the "Home Alone" reference and other scenes where the parents and children are together making fun of each other which were just not funny and took away from the tension.
My main problem with the script was the fact that the characters' actions were mostly not appropriate. No one seemed to be bothered by the fact that these other human/non humans existed and when family members, even children, begin performing heinous actions, they don't even seem to blink an eye. They also have to write in the scene where they try and call the police and they are unavailable.
I feel like there was a really great film in there somewhere, they just didn't get it quite right. The middle section dragged somewhat and the ending was interesting but didn't hold water the more you thought about it. I have no issue with a vague ending as long as it leaves you thinking and drawing your own conclusions; however, this film was vague not in a good way I think just due to a mediocre screenplay or maybe bad editing.
Peele certainly had his own big shoes t fill after getting a Best Picture nomination for his first film, Get Out. The box office and critical acclaim were paramount on that one.
Hopefully, he will rebound from this film and create something truly unique and interesting for his next effort. We certainly need more great horror writer/directors out there!
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Rare Beasts (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Directorial debuts are tough, and it gives people a chance to establish their personal style. Sadly for me, Billie Piper’s first film had a style that didn’t sit well with me at all. She was heavily involved in the project; directing, writing and starring in it, but her unique first film is perhaps a bit too quirky.
Rare Beasts follows Mandy, a career-driven single mother (Billie Piper) and her turbulent relationship with Pete (Leo Bill). Possibly the most frustrating thing about this film as it’s unclear why the two of them even ended up together at all.
It’s not uncommon for people to choose poorly when they’re dating, and end up in a relationship that doesn’t work, but Rare Beasts offers no reason for the two to even end up together in the first place. Mandy’s a single mother, she’s wild, she wears bold clothing, and Pete is a traditionalist who is, frankly, a misogynist with anger issues.
Interestingly, the film’s synopsis describes Pete as ‘charming’, and I’m unable to see that quality in him, nor is it ever shown from Mandy’s point of view. She never once looks at Pete lovingly, or seems charmed by him.
The lack of context or any indication as to what drove them to be together is a problem for me. Even if we saw one tiny nice moment between them it would make sense, but throughout the film they’re consistently awful to each other with no redeeming features.
Combined with a narrative that is all over the place and dialogue that feels very unnatural, it comes across as jarring most of the time. I have no issue with unconventional film styles, but I found it very hard to follow what was going on at various points.
It seems Rare Beasts is confused about what tone its actually going for, switching between whimsical musical style scenes (minus the music or singing) and gritty realism in a matter of seconds.
I appreciated the efforts to raise awareness of social issues such as domestic abuse, gender inequalities and the struggles of bringing up a child as a single parent, but these messages are squashed by a visual style that is rather overwhelming.
There is also a sub-plot involving Mandy’s parents (Kerry Fox and David Thewlis), who have separated but appear to have a complicated relationship. This is never fully explained either so it’s hard to connect with them, especially when Mandy’s mother falls ill.
This attempt to tug at our heartstrings falls flat, which is disappointing as it had the potential to bring some real, raw emotion to Rare Beasts. Sadly it’s as disjoined and confusing as Mandy and Pete’s relationship.
It’s clear those involved in the film gave it their all, and I can’t fault the quality of the actors even though some of the lines didn’t work and felt too far removed from natural conversation to be taken seriously. At least they tried.
Billie Piper has talent, there’s no doubt about it, but she hasn’t quite made it work in this very daring debut behind the camera. If Rare Beasts was attempting to be relatable and resonate with audiences, it failed to do that with me.
Rare Beasts follows Mandy, a career-driven single mother (Billie Piper) and her turbulent relationship with Pete (Leo Bill). Possibly the most frustrating thing about this film as it’s unclear why the two of them even ended up together at all.
It’s not uncommon for people to choose poorly when they’re dating, and end up in a relationship that doesn’t work, but Rare Beasts offers no reason for the two to even end up together in the first place. Mandy’s a single mother, she’s wild, she wears bold clothing, and Pete is a traditionalist who is, frankly, a misogynist with anger issues.
Interestingly, the film’s synopsis describes Pete as ‘charming’, and I’m unable to see that quality in him, nor is it ever shown from Mandy’s point of view. She never once looks at Pete lovingly, or seems charmed by him.
The lack of context or any indication as to what drove them to be together is a problem for me. Even if we saw one tiny nice moment between them it would make sense, but throughout the film they’re consistently awful to each other with no redeeming features.
Combined with a narrative that is all over the place and dialogue that feels very unnatural, it comes across as jarring most of the time. I have no issue with unconventional film styles, but I found it very hard to follow what was going on at various points.
It seems Rare Beasts is confused about what tone its actually going for, switching between whimsical musical style scenes (minus the music or singing) and gritty realism in a matter of seconds.
I appreciated the efforts to raise awareness of social issues such as domestic abuse, gender inequalities and the struggles of bringing up a child as a single parent, but these messages are squashed by a visual style that is rather overwhelming.
There is also a sub-plot involving Mandy’s parents (Kerry Fox and David Thewlis), who have separated but appear to have a complicated relationship. This is never fully explained either so it’s hard to connect with them, especially when Mandy’s mother falls ill.
This attempt to tug at our heartstrings falls flat, which is disappointing as it had the potential to bring some real, raw emotion to Rare Beasts. Sadly it’s as disjoined and confusing as Mandy and Pete’s relationship.
It’s clear those involved in the film gave it their all, and I can’t fault the quality of the actors even though some of the lines didn’t work and felt too far removed from natural conversation to be taken seriously. At least they tried.
Billie Piper has talent, there’s no doubt about it, but she hasn’t quite made it work in this very daring debut behind the camera. If Rare Beasts was attempting to be relatable and resonate with audiences, it failed to do that with me.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Marvels (2022) in Movies
Nov 10, 2023
Fun. Lightweight Romp
If you, like many others, have opted out of the past few Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films and are, likewise, suffering from “SuperHero” fatigue but are now looking for a re-entry into the MCU, then THE MARVELS is the film for you, for unlike some previous MCU films, it does not take much in the way of previous knowledge to get into the flow of this (somewhat) lightweight, fun action comic-book flick.
Academy Award winner Brie Larson returns as Captain Marvel and is joined (literally) with Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris - who’s SuperHero Origin story can be found in the DisneyPlus TV Series WANDAVISION, but is summed up pretty quickly here, so you’ll get the drift) as well as young MS. MARVEL (Iman Vellani, who’s origin story is told in the DisnePlus TV Series MS. MARVEL but who’s story is summed pretty quickly - and pretty well - here). They join forces to fight a villain, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) intent on inflicting revenge/punishment on Captain Marvel. Also along for the ride is good ol’ Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury (in his 15th appearance in an MCU vehicle). They all bounce around the scenarios with a winking knowledge - and earnestness - about what kind of movie they are making…and with which what tone they need to hit.
In the hands of Director Nia DaCosta (the 2020 remake of CANDYMAN), THE MARVELS moves along at a brisk pace, injecting some humor and decent (enough) action sequences and CGI mixed in with a clever segment or 2 (one scene set to a classic Musical Theater song is worth the price of admission in and of itself). There is enough light, breezy sequences and banter that the main word that comes out of this film is “fun”. DaCosta succeeds, very well, with fun in this film. Where she doesn’t succeed as well is in emotional heft. Captain Marvel is given a few “self reflective” moments and while Larson is a terrific actor and tries to succeed with these moments, they didn’t feel earned, so they fell flat. Unfortunately, the other characters are there to battle and throw off one-liners…and not much more.
Wisely, DaCosta limits this film to 1 hours and 45 minutes - the shortest MCU film to date - and this is a positive for she just “gets to it” and doesn’t linger on any of the moments that don’t work or would fall apart if anyone had anytime to think about them.
And, of course, the “extra scenes” (an MCU staple) set up 2 new franchises, so you want to stick around for them (but you don’t need to stick around to the end of the credits).
All-in-all - Ms. Marvel is a fun, lightweight romp that will entertain for the time you are in the cineplex. But not much more. But…isn’t that what going to the movies is all about?
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Academy Award winner Brie Larson returns as Captain Marvel and is joined (literally) with Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris - who’s SuperHero Origin story can be found in the DisneyPlus TV Series WANDAVISION, but is summed up pretty quickly here, so you’ll get the drift) as well as young MS. MARVEL (Iman Vellani, who’s origin story is told in the DisnePlus TV Series MS. MARVEL but who’s story is summed pretty quickly - and pretty well - here). They join forces to fight a villain, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) intent on inflicting revenge/punishment on Captain Marvel. Also along for the ride is good ol’ Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury (in his 15th appearance in an MCU vehicle). They all bounce around the scenarios with a winking knowledge - and earnestness - about what kind of movie they are making…and with which what tone they need to hit.
In the hands of Director Nia DaCosta (the 2020 remake of CANDYMAN), THE MARVELS moves along at a brisk pace, injecting some humor and decent (enough) action sequences and CGI mixed in with a clever segment or 2 (one scene set to a classic Musical Theater song is worth the price of admission in and of itself). There is enough light, breezy sequences and banter that the main word that comes out of this film is “fun”. DaCosta succeeds, very well, with fun in this film. Where she doesn’t succeed as well is in emotional heft. Captain Marvel is given a few “self reflective” moments and while Larson is a terrific actor and tries to succeed with these moments, they didn’t feel earned, so they fell flat. Unfortunately, the other characters are there to battle and throw off one-liners…and not much more.
Wisely, DaCosta limits this film to 1 hours and 45 minutes - the shortest MCU film to date - and this is a positive for she just “gets to it” and doesn’t linger on any of the moments that don’t work or would fall apart if anyone had anytime to think about them.
And, of course, the “extra scenes” (an MCU staple) set up 2 new franchises, so you want to stick around for them (but you don’t need to stick around to the end of the credits).
All-in-all - Ms. Marvel is a fun, lightweight romp that will entertain for the time you are in the cineplex. But not much more. But…isn’t that what going to the movies is all about?
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Greatest Beer Run Ever (2022) in Movies
Oct 10, 2022
Touched Me In The End
The new Apple TV+ original film THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER is being advertised as kind of a “wacky buddy comedy” with a bunch of New York slackers looking for beer in Viet Nam.
This advertisement is doing this film a great disservice for this movie is much, much more than that and deserves some attention - and eyeballs looking at it.
Starring Zach Efron (who has turned into an actor who is much, much more than Troy Bolton of HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL fame) and directed by Peter Farrelly (one of the Farrelly brothers that brought you such comedies as THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN), THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER tells the tale of a New Yorker in the late 1960’s who is big on talk and little on action. To shut those around him up, Chickie Donohue (Efron) decides to bring his buddies that are fighting in Viet Nam some beer from home. What starts out as a lark, evolves into something much more serious…and meaningful…for both Chickie and the audience.
Efron is quite good in the central role as Chickie and this film needs his inherent charisma in the center of this film as he is in every scene. Efron exudes goodness and sincerity even though, at times, he his speaking out of the sides of his mouth - or a place much further down his anatomy. And, as his character learns more and more about what is really going on in the war in Vietnam, his bravado and bluster fade and we get a glimpse of the real person underneath who is horrified by what he sees in this war.
Russell Crowe - who is finding a career renaissance in Supporting Roles - is strong (naturally) as a war photographer who befriends Chickie and takes him under his wing while the myriad of young, unknown actors who play Chickie’s friends scattered across various theaters of action in Viet Nam are appropriately played as folks who think what Chickie is doing is hilarious to those who are horrified that Chickie would voluntarily enter this war zone.
The tone of the film shifts from fun and silly to deep and meaningful throughout it’s 2 hour, 6 minute run-time, all under the watchful eye of Farrelly. He really has a handle on the deeper war-torn aspects of this film, while he (purposefully, I would imagine) shies away from his expected comedy and zaniness that could have been the first part of this movie. IMHO, Farrelly could have imparted some more zaniness at the start - to give the film a better kickstart (the beginning is a little slow) while also more starkly contrasting the beginning and end of the film - and the change in Chickie because of this experience.
I was drawn in - and touched - by the latter part of this BEER RUN and would strongly encourage everyone to check out this fine film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This advertisement is doing this film a great disservice for this movie is much, much more than that and deserves some attention - and eyeballs looking at it.
Starring Zach Efron (who has turned into an actor who is much, much more than Troy Bolton of HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL fame) and directed by Peter Farrelly (one of the Farrelly brothers that brought you such comedies as THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN), THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER tells the tale of a New Yorker in the late 1960’s who is big on talk and little on action. To shut those around him up, Chickie Donohue (Efron) decides to bring his buddies that are fighting in Viet Nam some beer from home. What starts out as a lark, evolves into something much more serious…and meaningful…for both Chickie and the audience.
Efron is quite good in the central role as Chickie and this film needs his inherent charisma in the center of this film as he is in every scene. Efron exudes goodness and sincerity even though, at times, he his speaking out of the sides of his mouth - or a place much further down his anatomy. And, as his character learns more and more about what is really going on in the war in Vietnam, his bravado and bluster fade and we get a glimpse of the real person underneath who is horrified by what he sees in this war.
Russell Crowe - who is finding a career renaissance in Supporting Roles - is strong (naturally) as a war photographer who befriends Chickie and takes him under his wing while the myriad of young, unknown actors who play Chickie’s friends scattered across various theaters of action in Viet Nam are appropriately played as folks who think what Chickie is doing is hilarious to those who are horrified that Chickie would voluntarily enter this war zone.
The tone of the film shifts from fun and silly to deep and meaningful throughout it’s 2 hour, 6 minute run-time, all under the watchful eye of Farrelly. He really has a handle on the deeper war-torn aspects of this film, while he (purposefully, I would imagine) shies away from his expected comedy and zaniness that could have been the first part of this movie. IMHO, Farrelly could have imparted some more zaniness at the start - to give the film a better kickstart (the beginning is a little slow) while also more starkly contrasting the beginning and end of the film - and the change in Chickie because of this experience.
I was drawn in - and touched - by the latter part of this BEER RUN and would strongly encourage everyone to check out this fine film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The little mermaid (2023) in Movies
May 26, 2023
(By my wife Genevieve)I must admit that I may be biased about this movie, being a huge fan of all things Disney. However, the popular and beloved original The Little Mermaid was released in November 1989, about 6 months before I graduated high school. Not really the age to be that interested in an animated movie about a mermaid who trades her voice away to be able to live where the people are. But of course, I still watched it and I, like many, definitely loved the songs. The storyline? Not so much.
When I first heard a live-action version was in the works, my initial response was tepid, "That's nice." Only when I heard a person of color would play Ariel was my curiosity really piqued. As a minority, when many asked, "Why?", I thought, "Why not?" I was very moved when I saw the videos of young Black girls reacting excitedly to the first trailer when they discovered Ariel looked like them, further answering the many still asking "Why?" with "This. This is why."
If you've seen the animated version, then you know the gist of the story - young mermaid Ariel, played beautifully by Halle Bailey, is fascinated by the world above the water and collects all the human thingamabobs that litter the sea floor. She rebels against her father, King Triton, the handsome Javier Bardem, by giving in to her curiosity and ends up rescuing the merchant Prince Eric from drowning when the ship he's sailing is caught in a treacherous storm. Ariel is instantly smitten and Prince Eric, played by the perfectly-cast Jonah Hauer-King, is equally obsessed with the voice he heard as he was revived by Ariel’s siren song.
While obviously geared towards a younger audience, I found much to love about this movie. Jodi Benson’s original version will always be perfection, but Halle Bailey’s emotional rendition of “Part of Your World”, coupled with her luminous and expressive face, was just phenomenal. I had to temper my applause after her performance while a few appreciative “Whooo!” sounded through the audience. Melissa McCarthy’s Ursula and her iconic “Poor Unfortunate Souls” was definitely a highlight. Daveed Diggs as Sebastian (also inspired casting) and Awkwafina as Scuttle need their own spinoff. They’re hilarious together.
Alan Menken’s classic songs from the original were given new life by McCarthy, Bailey, and Diggs, and Lin Manuel Miranda’s signature touch is easily identifiable in the new ballads for Ariel and Prince Eric, and a Hamilton-style rap by Awkwafina and Diggs.
I appreciated the parallel stories with the prince just as curious about the world beyond his island as Ariel is about the world beyond her ocean, both bound by duty to their parents and their people, while yearning to explore the great “out there”. In all my Disney and Pixar movie-watching experiences, it has consistently been Pixar movies that get me emotionally compromised, so I was a bit surprised to find myself reaching for a napkin at the end of this movie, after a scene between Ariel and her dad. I will blame it on the nostalgia.
4 out of 5 stars just for the musical performances alone.
When I first heard a live-action version was in the works, my initial response was tepid, "That's nice." Only when I heard a person of color would play Ariel was my curiosity really piqued. As a minority, when many asked, "Why?", I thought, "Why not?" I was very moved when I saw the videos of young Black girls reacting excitedly to the first trailer when they discovered Ariel looked like them, further answering the many still asking "Why?" with "This. This is why."
If you've seen the animated version, then you know the gist of the story - young mermaid Ariel, played beautifully by Halle Bailey, is fascinated by the world above the water and collects all the human thingamabobs that litter the sea floor. She rebels against her father, King Triton, the handsome Javier Bardem, by giving in to her curiosity and ends up rescuing the merchant Prince Eric from drowning when the ship he's sailing is caught in a treacherous storm. Ariel is instantly smitten and Prince Eric, played by the perfectly-cast Jonah Hauer-King, is equally obsessed with the voice he heard as he was revived by Ariel’s siren song.
While obviously geared towards a younger audience, I found much to love about this movie. Jodi Benson’s original version will always be perfection, but Halle Bailey’s emotional rendition of “Part of Your World”, coupled with her luminous and expressive face, was just phenomenal. I had to temper my applause after her performance while a few appreciative “Whooo!” sounded through the audience. Melissa McCarthy’s Ursula and her iconic “Poor Unfortunate Souls” was definitely a highlight. Daveed Diggs as Sebastian (also inspired casting) and Awkwafina as Scuttle need their own spinoff. They’re hilarious together.
Alan Menken’s classic songs from the original were given new life by McCarthy, Bailey, and Diggs, and Lin Manuel Miranda’s signature touch is easily identifiable in the new ballads for Ariel and Prince Eric, and a Hamilton-style rap by Awkwafina and Diggs.
I appreciated the parallel stories with the prince just as curious about the world beyond his island as Ariel is about the world beyond her ocean, both bound by duty to their parents and their people, while yearning to explore the great “out there”. In all my Disney and Pixar movie-watching experiences, it has consistently been Pixar movies that get me emotionally compromised, so I was a bit surprised to find myself reaching for a napkin at the end of this movie, after a scene between Ariel and her dad. I will blame it on the nostalgia.
4 out of 5 stars just for the musical performances alone.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….