Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Hard Candy (2005) in Movies
Feb 21, 2019
Solid Movie
Hardy Candy is as good as it is unsettling. There is an art in movies to making you feel creeped out and director David Slade definitely pulls it off here. I don’t really want to disclose too much of the plot in fear of giving it away for those that haven’t seen it, but I will say that it starts with a teenager meeting a thirty-something year-old in a chat room and agreeing to meet him in person. I definitely wasn’t expecting or ready for what happened next.
Acting: 10
Ellen Page plays the role of the aforementioned teenager Hayley Stark. In a word: Fantastic. I can almost imagine a role of this nature being somewhat freeing and therapeutic. I love the angle that she took as Hayley, calm on the surface but a loose cannon ready to explode. The emotional range here is noticed and appreciated.
Shout-out to Patrick Wilson playing the role of Jeff Kohlver the thirty-something. He, just like Page, excels in playing a multi-dimensional character that has that “other” side. Seeing the two work on screen together is like magic.
Beginning; 10
Characters: 9
The story centers around Hayley and Patrick but, in a way, one could argue that the movie is about four people: Their characters and the ones underneath the surface. The way they play off of each other is fascinating. You want to see more of them, know more about what got them to this point. It’s a cat-and-mouse game and you don’t quite know who’s who.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Colors and tones play a significant role in setting the mood of the movie. Again, it’s that eery creepiness Slade manages to capture in every shot, even when things feel normal. Emotional moments are captured in a way that manage to magnify the way a viewer feels. That’s where I feel the visuals succeed the most. On the downside, it got somewhat monotonous having the characters be in one location for the majority of the movie. Maybe breaking it up with flashbacks or something would have made the pill a little easier to swallow.
Conflict: 4
Let’s just say I was expecting a lot more to happen than what actually did. In other words, there was DEFINITELY room for more conflict here. Just slightly more subtle than I was hoping for.
Genre: 5
This score would have been higher had there been just a bit more action and a fluctuation of location changes. While it checks most boxes for what makes a quality movie, I have seen better dramas that are worth the higher score.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Sometimes intensity can magnify a situation and that’s one of a number of things Hard Candy is great at. Because you’re dealing with two characters that are loaded pistols, you don’t really know what’s going to unfold from one scene to the next. That’s ultimately what makes the movie so fun to watch. There is always something to pay attention to here.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 83
Hard Candy is a great example of why I created my scoring system in the first place. Some movies slip in some areas and they get called a bad movie as a result. When you look at all the moving parts separately, however, you potentially learn the opposite. Is it a perfect movie? Not at all. Is it a solid, fun movie to watch. Absolutely.
Acting: 10
Ellen Page plays the role of the aforementioned teenager Hayley Stark. In a word: Fantastic. I can almost imagine a role of this nature being somewhat freeing and therapeutic. I love the angle that she took as Hayley, calm on the surface but a loose cannon ready to explode. The emotional range here is noticed and appreciated.
Shout-out to Patrick Wilson playing the role of Jeff Kohlver the thirty-something. He, just like Page, excels in playing a multi-dimensional character that has that “other” side. Seeing the two work on screen together is like magic.
Beginning; 10
Characters: 9
The story centers around Hayley and Patrick but, in a way, one could argue that the movie is about four people: Their characters and the ones underneath the surface. The way they play off of each other is fascinating. You want to see more of them, know more about what got them to this point. It’s a cat-and-mouse game and you don’t quite know who’s who.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Colors and tones play a significant role in setting the mood of the movie. Again, it’s that eery creepiness Slade manages to capture in every shot, even when things feel normal. Emotional moments are captured in a way that manage to magnify the way a viewer feels. That’s where I feel the visuals succeed the most. On the downside, it got somewhat monotonous having the characters be in one location for the majority of the movie. Maybe breaking it up with flashbacks or something would have made the pill a little easier to swallow.
Conflict: 4
Let’s just say I was expecting a lot more to happen than what actually did. In other words, there was DEFINITELY room for more conflict here. Just slightly more subtle than I was hoping for.
Genre: 5
This score would have been higher had there been just a bit more action and a fluctuation of location changes. While it checks most boxes for what makes a quality movie, I have seen better dramas that are worth the higher score.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Sometimes intensity can magnify a situation and that’s one of a number of things Hard Candy is great at. Because you’re dealing with two characters that are loaded pistols, you don’t really know what’s going to unfold from one scene to the next. That’s ultimately what makes the movie so fun to watch. There is always something to pay attention to here.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 83
Hard Candy is a great example of why I created my scoring system in the first place. Some movies slip in some areas and they get called a bad movie as a result. When you look at all the moving parts separately, however, you potentially learn the opposite. Is it a perfect movie? Not at all. Is it a solid, fun movie to watch. Absolutely.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Elvenbane (Halfblood Chronicles, #1) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
The world that the writing team of Norton and Lackey crafts is quite fascinating in its detail and description. The timeline and history of this world seems to place it sort of after the end of our present world, as a kind of post-apocalypse in which first the dragons found and then the elves, with the latter taking over and enslaving the remaining humans. I found the passage of time to be bothersome at times, since the authors seem to almost skip over the climaxes in favor of just relaying the information through the memories of the characters after the fact. More than once, I wished the writers could have written out this passage of time so that I can actually experience it as it happens.
The characters were all well-developed and unique, as the size of the book allowed the writers to spend lots of time focusing on a single character, even if his or her purpose seemed to end rather abruptly with death, such as Shana's mother, Serina Daeth. Normally, I have no trouble picking characters that I favored over the others, but with this book, no character seemed to jump out at me as so much better than the others, even the main character Shana, who seemed to lack in maturity as much as a pre-teen, with how she behaves around some of the other characters.
There were several over-arching themes in the book, such as the need for change, the call for justice, and how every rule has exceptions. Shana especially seemed to find the latter annoying as she continually found that what she was taught about elves, humans, or dragons was not always true. Even though the legend of the Elvenbane is merely a tall tale crafted by the dragons to stir up trouble with the elves and humans, Shana falls into the role by accident simply because of a dragon's kindness. Ironically, her up-bringing gives her the perfect personality for playing that role, as the main goal of this book was to put her in the perfect position to fill this role for the next book in the series, Elvenblood (Halfblood Chronicles).
The characters were all well-developed and unique, as the size of the book allowed the writers to spend lots of time focusing on a single character, even if his or her purpose seemed to end rather abruptly with death, such as Shana's mother, Serina Daeth. Normally, I have no trouble picking characters that I favored over the others, but with this book, no character seemed to jump out at me as so much better than the others, even the main character Shana, who seemed to lack in maturity as much as a pre-teen, with how she behaves around some of the other characters.
There were several over-arching themes in the book, such as the need for change, the call for justice, and how every rule has exceptions. Shana especially seemed to find the latter annoying as she continually found that what she was taught about elves, humans, or dragons was not always true. Even though the legend of the Elvenbane is merely a tall tale crafted by the dragons to stir up trouble with the elves and humans, Shana falls into the role by accident simply because of a dragon's kindness. Ironically, her up-bringing gives her the perfect personality for playing that role, as the main goal of this book was to put her in the perfect position to fill this role for the next book in the series, Elvenblood (Halfblood Chronicles).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated The Nix in Books
Dec 4, 2017
Glorious, extravagant, epic family saga
It's hardly surprising Meryl Streep has bought the rights to this debut novel by Nathan Hill, which explores relations amongst several generations of a family.
It spans nearly fifty years, with flashbacks to student protests during 1968, from the present day, and the travails of an academic, struggling to engage with lazy and disaffected students, and playing ‘Elfscape’, an online role-playing game that works along the lines of World of Warcraft. The narrative perspective moves around quite a bit in the first few chapters, but a strong theme quickly emerges.
Samuel Andresen-Anderson is the principal protagonist, and is a genuinely empathetic character. Far from perfect, he is beset with irritations, ranging from the cheating and ignorance of many of his students to the family upheaval suffered during his childhood, which still troubles him more than twenty years later.
Behind all this is the story of Faye, Samuel’s mother, who walked out on her family more than twenty years earlier, and who is catapulted into the public consciousness following a sudden impulsive act. This offered Hill the opportunity for some acute observations about the motives and actions of the student rebels from the late 1960s, while also exposing the hypocrisies of the establishment and the cruelties of some of the police during those troubles. In between, the author even delves into Norwegian folklore.
The writing is fine – clear and accessible - and Hill manages the complex storylines admirably. Moving backwards and forwards between the late 1960s, late 1980s and 2011, the plot never flags. This was a long novel, but very entertaining throughout.
It spans nearly fifty years, with flashbacks to student protests during 1968, from the present day, and the travails of an academic, struggling to engage with lazy and disaffected students, and playing ‘Elfscape’, an online role-playing game that works along the lines of World of Warcraft. The narrative perspective moves around quite a bit in the first few chapters, but a strong theme quickly emerges.
Samuel Andresen-Anderson is the principal protagonist, and is a genuinely empathetic character. Far from perfect, he is beset with irritations, ranging from the cheating and ignorance of many of his students to the family upheaval suffered during his childhood, which still troubles him more than twenty years later.
Behind all this is the story of Faye, Samuel’s mother, who walked out on her family more than twenty years earlier, and who is catapulted into the public consciousness following a sudden impulsive act. This offered Hill the opportunity for some acute observations about the motives and actions of the student rebels from the late 1960s, while also exposing the hypocrisies of the establishment and the cruelties of some of the police during those troubles. In between, the author even delves into Norwegian folklore.
The writing is fine – clear and accessible - and Hill manages the complex storylines admirably. Moving backwards and forwards between the late 1960s, late 1980s and 2011, the plot never flags. This was a long novel, but very entertaining throughout.
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning (2007) in Movies
Aug 15, 2019
April Scott as Daisy Duke was hot - which is half of the appeal (2 more)
The stunts were decent - which is the other half
Harland Williams is hilarious, and I'll watch basically anything with him in it
Most of the cast - not necessarily that they were bad, but some were a bad fit for the characters (2 more)
The writing sometimes felt like a parody of itself.
The stunts were only decent.... and this is Dukes of Hazzard, where the stunts are the key.
Inconsistent and dumb
Ugh. And I thought the first movie was bad. Basically, this movie wants to be The Dukes of Hazzard meets American Pie but winds up closer to a parody of the classic show crossed with one of American Pie's less competent knockoffs. At times it hits the mark, true, but other times its almost more like a parody of the Dukes than it is the real deal. April Scott was decent in her role as Daisy, and turned out not to be just a mannequin for the shorts and crop-top, but the two leads? Less than stellar. Harland Williams is hilarious, but he's not a good fit for Sherriff Coltrane, who is supposed to be at least a little menacing if memory serves. Chris McDonald has made his career playing the corrupt businessman/politician role, which means he does it well, but his turn as Boss Hogg was just a generic rehash of a dozen other roles. As a final nail in the coffin the TV budget hampered the stunts to the point of not being able to save it. Go watch the show instead.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Queen & Slim (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2020
Extremely Entertaining
In the first ten minutes, you have a good idea of how Queen & Slim is going to end. Two black people on a first date end up killing a cop during a traffic stop. In spite the dread of knowing where things are heading, the movie is so powerfully done that it gave me a bit of a chill as the credits were rolling.
Acting: 10
Daniel Kaluuya puts on yet another powerful performance, this time playing the role of the male love interest Slim. I love the way he chose to play this role as a man that doesn’t have it all together trying to figure things out on the fly. His counterpart Jodi Turner-Smith playing Queen is so on point as well carrying the strong emotional defensiveness of the lawyer that she is. Their chemistry drives this movie to heights I wasn’t expecting.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie is beautifully shot with a number of strong sequences and setpieces that keep things interesting. Director Melina Matsoukas is a master of capturing emotional moments with well-timed closeups and long pauses. She pushes the emotions out of the viewers with tender scenes and scenes that get your blood boiling.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 9
This movie sticks, it sticks with you. It’s hard to walk away from it and not feel some way or the other. It will challenge you emotionally and mentally. It’s not perfect as it does stick to a pretty linear script, but it’s extremely memorable nonethless.
Pace: 10
Because of the constant danger the two main characters are under, the movie moves quick even when they’re just sitting around awaiting their next piece of the plan. It’s heartpounding like knowing a car crash is coming, but you’re forced to watch it anyway. There is no standing still. They’re always on the run so the pace remains uptempo.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Yes Queen & Slim is pretty linear, but it works for the building of the relationship within the story. And yes you see the ending coming but there’s a true power that comes from it that makes it worth it. The conflict is great, but the dialogue solidifies it for me as a classic. See this movie.
Acting: 10
Daniel Kaluuya puts on yet another powerful performance, this time playing the role of the male love interest Slim. I love the way he chose to play this role as a man that doesn’t have it all together trying to figure things out on the fly. His counterpart Jodi Turner-Smith playing Queen is so on point as well carrying the strong emotional defensiveness of the lawyer that she is. Their chemistry drives this movie to heights I wasn’t expecting.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie is beautifully shot with a number of strong sequences and setpieces that keep things interesting. Director Melina Matsoukas is a master of capturing emotional moments with well-timed closeups and long pauses. She pushes the emotions out of the viewers with tender scenes and scenes that get your blood boiling.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 9
This movie sticks, it sticks with you. It’s hard to walk away from it and not feel some way or the other. It will challenge you emotionally and mentally. It’s not perfect as it does stick to a pretty linear script, but it’s extremely memorable nonethless.
Pace: 10
Because of the constant danger the two main characters are under, the movie moves quick even when they’re just sitting around awaiting their next piece of the plan. It’s heartpounding like knowing a car crash is coming, but you’re forced to watch it anyway. There is no standing still. They’re always on the run so the pace remains uptempo.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Yes Queen & Slim is pretty linear, but it works for the building of the relationship within the story. And yes you see the ending coming but there’s a true power that comes from it that makes it worth it. The conflict is great, but the dialogue solidifies it for me as a classic. See this movie.
David McK (3185 KP) rated Sharpe's Revenge in Books
Feb 18, 2019
For the last couple of years or so, I've been (slowly) making my way through the Sharpe books, in chronological order by setting and in between my various other reading activities i.e. maybe one Richard Sharpe book every couple of months or so
I'm approaching the end of that project, with (currently) only two more novels to go: [book:Sharpe's Waterloo|328986], and [book:Sharpe's Devil|615225].
This particular entry is set during the latter days of the Napoleonic Wars: during the Peace of Amiens in 1814, to be precise, with Sharpe's personal and professional life falling apart after he is framed by wily French spymaster Pierre Ducos. This novel also sees the fall-out from certain events in the previous entries ([book:Sharpe's Siege|564536]), starting with an - illegal - duel between Sharpe and the naval commander who was responsible for abandoning him and his men behind enemy lines, moving on to his cuckolding by his wife Jane by a former friend, and even expanding on the family of the commander of that French fort with one family member, in particular, playing a very important role in Sharpe's future life!
I'm approaching the end of that project, with (currently) only two more novels to go: [book:Sharpe's Waterloo|328986], and [book:Sharpe's Devil|615225].
This particular entry is set during the latter days of the Napoleonic Wars: during the Peace of Amiens in 1814, to be precise, with Sharpe's personal and professional life falling apart after he is framed by wily French spymaster Pierre Ducos. This novel also sees the fall-out from certain events in the previous entries ([book:Sharpe's Siege|564536]), starting with an - illegal - duel between Sharpe and the naval commander who was responsible for abandoning him and his men behind enemy lines, moving on to his cuckolding by his wife Jane by a former friend, and even expanding on the family of the commander of that French fort with one family member, in particular, playing a very important role in Sharpe's future life!
David McK (3185 KP) rated Dark Prince (Greek Series, #2) in Books
Jul 25, 2020
Sequel to David Gemmell's earlier Lion of Macedon, with more emphasis on the mystical elements this time around: whereas that earlier novel was perhaps 90/10 in favour of history, this is (IMO) closer to 40/60.
As the novel starts, Alexander is but a 4 year old and Parmenion is out of favour with Philip of Macedon, who is jealous of the Spartan general's success in battle. Alexander is still plagued by the Chaos Spirit, and - at around the 1/4 mark - is magically transported into an alternate Greece, where the myths and monsters of Greek legend are all real. With a little help from Aristotle and the Siptrassi stones, Parmenion is soon off on a rescue mission, accompanied by Philip's assassin Attalus (without Philips knowledge). The bulk of this novel - parts 2 and 3 (of 4) - then takes place in that alternate Greece, with Parmenion - again - reliving his past and playing a key role in proceedings, before it returns to 'our' Greece for the final part of the novel.
As is standard for Gemmell, lots of musing on the nature of Good and evil throughout, and with a conflicted central protagonist.
As the novel starts, Alexander is but a 4 year old and Parmenion is out of favour with Philip of Macedon, who is jealous of the Spartan general's success in battle. Alexander is still plagued by the Chaos Spirit, and - at around the 1/4 mark - is magically transported into an alternate Greece, where the myths and monsters of Greek legend are all real. With a little help from Aristotle and the Siptrassi stones, Parmenion is soon off on a rescue mission, accompanied by Philip's assassin Attalus (without Philips knowledge). The bulk of this novel - parts 2 and 3 (of 4) - then takes place in that alternate Greece, with Parmenion - again - reliving his past and playing a key role in proceedings, before it returns to 'our' Greece for the final part of the novel.
As is standard for Gemmell, lots of musing on the nature of Good and evil throughout, and with a conflicted central protagonist.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) in Movies
May 14, 2020
It's easy to forget what an unstoppable cultural juggernaut Four Weddings was for most of the summer of 1994: cinemas sold out for weeks on end (it was still playing in a few screens when it came out on VHS), careers were launched by it, sales of Auden soared, and the theme tune was number one for about three months. And watching it again it can be difficult to see just why it was such a smash: bits of it feel very dated, it sort of offers a tourist's eye view of England as inhabited largely by rich posh people, and Andie McDowell is a bit teaky in a crucial role.
However, this is to overlook how dire most British comedy films of the early 90s were and how fresh and funny this felt. The jokes here are frequent and good, but the characters are not cartoons and when the film skirts darker moments it does so with sincerity. It is neatly written and very well performed; the people who became stars off the back of this movie generally deserved it. Very watchable and entertaining even a quarter-century on.
However, this is to overlook how dire most British comedy films of the early 90s were and how fresh and funny this felt. The jokes here are frequent and good, but the characters are not cartoons and when the film skirts darker moments it does so with sincerity. It is neatly written and very well performed; the people who became stars off the back of this movie generally deserved it. Very watchable and entertaining even a quarter-century on.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Dead Ringers (1988) in Movies
Sep 15, 2020 (Updated Sep 15, 2020)
Whats The Difference Between Us
Dead Ringers- is a decent movie, its the last movie david cronenberg did in the 80's. So his 80's streak ending on a low ball/a dispointment. I really liked Jeremy Irons he was really good. And the psychological espect was good as well. Other than that it was a okay movie.
The Plot: Elliot (Jeremy Irons), a successful gynecologist, works at the same practice as his identical twin, Beverly (also Irons). Elliot is attracted to many of his patients and has affairs with them. When he inevitably loses interest, he will give the woman over to Beverly, the meeker of the two, without the woman knowing the difference. Beverly falls hard for one of the patients, Claire (Geneviève Bujold), but when she inadvertently deceives him, he slips into a state of madness.
In his DVD commentary, Irons claims that Robert De Niro declined playing the Mantles due to his unease with the subject matter and portraying gynecologists, while William Hurt decided to reject the parts because "it is hard enough to play one role".
Irons was given two different dressing rooms with two sets of costumes for playing his two characters. However, given the fact that he said "the whole point of the story is you should sometimes be confused as to which is which", he chose to use only one of the rooms and combine different costume items intended for different characters. Irons also developed an "internal way" to portray each character, employing the Alexander technique for "different energy points", giving each character his own appearance.
Like i said before the psychological espect is good in this. Jeremy Irons was excellent. I wouldnt really recordmend this film, rather davids other 80's films instead.
The Plot: Elliot (Jeremy Irons), a successful gynecologist, works at the same practice as his identical twin, Beverly (also Irons). Elliot is attracted to many of his patients and has affairs with them. When he inevitably loses interest, he will give the woman over to Beverly, the meeker of the two, without the woman knowing the difference. Beverly falls hard for one of the patients, Claire (Geneviève Bujold), but when she inadvertently deceives him, he slips into a state of madness.
In his DVD commentary, Irons claims that Robert De Niro declined playing the Mantles due to his unease with the subject matter and portraying gynecologists, while William Hurt decided to reject the parts because "it is hard enough to play one role".
Irons was given two different dressing rooms with two sets of costumes for playing his two characters. However, given the fact that he said "the whole point of the story is you should sometimes be confused as to which is which", he chose to use only one of the rooms and combine different costume items intended for different characters. Irons also developed an "internal way" to portray each character, employing the Alexander technique for "different energy points", giving each character his own appearance.
Like i said before the psychological espect is good in this. Jeremy Irons was excellent. I wouldnt really recordmend this film, rather davids other 80's films instead.