Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wordy but entertaining.
You can never accuse Aaron Sorkin of skimping on his words. Sorkin is of course the award-winning writer of “The West Wing” but on the big screen he has also written many classics: “A Few Good Men”; “The Social Network” and “Steve Jobs” for example. Here he also makes his directorial debut in a movie about the true-life turbulent career of Olympic wannabe skier Molly Bloom.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Lots of hens… but turkeys would be more appropriate.
I was not a great fan of the original Venom, although I did find aspects of it to like. Unfortunately, for me, the sequel – “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” – delivered even less. And I found aspects of it positively distasteful.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Feast of Fools (The Morganville Vampires, #4) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book picks up right where the previous one left off, right in the middle of the action. I love when books do that. I flew through this book as quickly as the previous three, barely taking time to eat or sleep. I would compare the infamous Mr. Bishop to Dracula - minus the romantic leanings. Nothing about him is remotely appealing, and he has no interest in making himself appealing, unlike the other two power players in town, Oliver and Amelie. Lots of subplots are developed, but this one felt like more time could have been devoted to these other elements and lengthened the novel a bit without sacrificing the quality of the text, such as exploring how Claire could wield the power of Glass House, the effect that Michael had on others when he performed, Claire's problem with her professor, or even Claire's parents reaction to the truth about Morganville. It feels as if there are too many characters in the script and not enough pages to give them all adequate time in the spotlight. I find the character of Myrnin even more fascinating in this book - he seems sort of like the dark town jester. I was also disappointed in Claire's lack of interest in her classes, given that she was so happy about her schedule change in the last book. The funeral of Eve's father seemed forced, like it was inserted in the plot as an afterthought, especially since we did not see her mother at the ball at the end of the book, even though it seems logical that Mrs. Rosser would try to use the occasion to make a specticle of herself, not unlike Monica Morrell. Wow, so I had alot of nit-picky things to say about this book, but I still really enjoyed it and I really like this series, especially the character of Claire, who has more courage and daring than anyone in the book. I look forward to the next one, Lord of Misrule.
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated The Love Letter in Books
Mar 5, 2019
When Chloe is given a peek at the script for an epic love story, she decides to take her destiny into her own hands and request an audition for the lead female role, Esther Kingsley. The compelling tale, inspired by family lore and a one-page letter from the colonial ancestor of scriptwriter Jesse Gates, just might break her out of this career-crippling rut. Jesse would rather write about romance than live through it after his past relationship ended in disaster. But once on-set together, the chemistry between Jesse and his leading lady is hard to deny.
Centuries earlier, in the heart of the Revolutionary War, Hamilton Lightfoot and Esther Longfellow wrote their saga off the silver screen. Esther’s Loyalist father opposes any relationship with Hamilton, but Esther must face her beloved father’s disapproval and the dangers of war in order to convince Hamilton of their future together. Hamilton has loved Esther for years and on the eve of battle pens the love letter she’s always wanted—something straight from the heart.
Set in stunning upcountry South Carolina, The Love Letter is a beautifully-crafted story of the courage it takes to face down fear and chase after love, even in the darkest of times. And just maybe, all these generations later, love can come home in a way, not even Hollywood could imagine.
My Thoughts:
This book was wonderful. It is a fast-paced book, the story flows well and keeps the reader interested. The characters are entertaining and easy to identify with. The reader finds themselves in the middle of the storyline cheering the characters on. I enjoyed the mix of past and present in the writing, it helped identify with all of the characters and helped the reader understand each of the main characters; what they were feeling and understanding what their life was like. Full of surprises, twists and fun, this is a great read. I highly recommend this book, giving it a 5-star rating.
Centuries earlier, in the heart of the Revolutionary War, Hamilton Lightfoot and Esther Longfellow wrote their saga off the silver screen. Esther’s Loyalist father opposes any relationship with Hamilton, but Esther must face her beloved father’s disapproval and the dangers of war in order to convince Hamilton of their future together. Hamilton has loved Esther for years and on the eve of battle pens the love letter she’s always wanted—something straight from the heart.
Set in stunning upcountry South Carolina, The Love Letter is a beautifully-crafted story of the courage it takes to face down fear and chase after love, even in the darkest of times. And just maybe, all these generations later, love can come home in a way, not even Hollywood could imagine.
My Thoughts:
This book was wonderful. It is a fast-paced book, the story flows well and keeps the reader interested. The characters are entertaining and easy to identify with. The reader finds themselves in the middle of the storyline cheering the characters on. I enjoyed the mix of past and present in the writing, it helped identify with all of the characters and helped the reader understand each of the main characters; what they were feeling and understanding what their life was like. Full of surprises, twists and fun, this is a great read. I highly recommend this book, giving it a 5-star rating.
Brecoles Nine (16 KP) rated God of War in Video Games
Mar 12, 2019
God of War- BOY!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Hello! So, God of War on the PS4. Techically God of War 4. The game started off by throwing you into this emotional journey by burying the wife of Kratos.
The emotional music that was lined up with the journey of gathering something as simple as wood, was by far the best part of the beginning.
Then a stranger comes and you being Kratos, you say to yourself, "Yeah, I can take him, look at this skinny little man thinking he stands a chance against me, the mighty KRATOS-" Then he catches you by surprise, he is so much more powerful than you imagined and now you're in this brilliantl, beautiful fight to the death. It was crazy. The whole game was filled with emotion and raw power. The emotional growth of the bond between Father and Son was a beautiful thing to watch.
This is a super late review, so there isn't much to say about it other than it was an incredible game that added onto an already incredible series. The end of the game left us with wanting more and more. By the end of it I found myself wanting to send an email to Santa Monica Studios, begging for an early copy of the next game or maybe a script just to know what happens. The cliffhanger it left us with was amazing and wonderful.
The combat was smooth and I found myself throwing the axe for no apparent reason but to see how far I could throw it and travel away from it, just to call it back and watch as the axe returns to Kratos' hand in real time. The amount of detail they put into this game is incredible and I'm sure that it will be quite a wait until the next one. In my honest opinion about God of War, I would personally give the game a solid 10/10. Thank you so much for reading!
The emotional music that was lined up with the journey of gathering something as simple as wood, was by far the best part of the beginning.
Then a stranger comes and you being Kratos, you say to yourself, "Yeah, I can take him, look at this skinny little man thinking he stands a chance against me, the mighty KRATOS-" Then he catches you by surprise, he is so much more powerful than you imagined and now you're in this brilliantl, beautiful fight to the death. It was crazy. The whole game was filled with emotion and raw power. The emotional growth of the bond between Father and Son was a beautiful thing to watch.
This is a super late review, so there isn't much to say about it other than it was an incredible game that added onto an already incredible series. The end of the game left us with wanting more and more. By the end of it I found myself wanting to send an email to Santa Monica Studios, begging for an early copy of the next game or maybe a script just to know what happens. The cliffhanger it left us with was amazing and wonderful.
The combat was smooth and I found myself throwing the axe for no apparent reason but to see how far I could throw it and travel away from it, just to call it back and watch as the axe returns to Kratos' hand in real time. The amount of detail they put into this game is incredible and I'm sure that it will be quite a wait until the next one. In my honest opinion about God of War, I would personally give the game a solid 10/10. Thank you so much for reading!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated After Life in TV
Apr 3, 2019 (Updated Apr 3, 2019)
Brilliantly written (1 more)
Fantastically performed by the entire cast
Beautiful
Ricky Gervais seems to be like Marmite to most people. I have always really liked the guy. I love The Office and Extras and his first 3 stand up shows are amongst some of the funniest that I have ever seen. In the years since however, I have seem to fallen away from his projects. Not for any particular reason, but this lull meant that shows like Derek, Life's Too Short and An Idiot Abroad all passed me by. I'm not sure what it was about After Life that got me back on-board, maybe it was the fact alone that it was on Netflix.
Regardless, this show is fantastic. It is hilarious, it is truly touching, it is brilliantly written, acted and surprisingly well shot for what it is. The characters are all fantastic and their relationships with each other and the way that they analyse and question each other is brilliant too.
I think that the most impressive thing about the show overall though, is how much Gervais is able to say with such a simple premise and a small cast. There are only about 15 characters that we see in the small village where the show is set and yet Gervais has managed to tackle some really serious issues like grief, depression and suicide in a realistically convincing way and on top of that, he still manage to make you laugh. It really a masterful script and the entire cast do a brilliant job in their respective roles.
Overall, this is one of the best things that I have seen this year and I would strongly encourage everyone to give it a go, even if you are not a fan of Gervais or his previous projects. This show can take you from splitting your sides laughing to tearing up in an instant and any piece of art that can make me feel that way is extremely valuable in my eyes. Also the dog is amazing.
Regardless, this show is fantastic. It is hilarious, it is truly touching, it is brilliantly written, acted and surprisingly well shot for what it is. The characters are all fantastic and their relationships with each other and the way that they analyse and question each other is brilliant too.
I think that the most impressive thing about the show overall though, is how much Gervais is able to say with such a simple premise and a small cast. There are only about 15 characters that we see in the small village where the show is set and yet Gervais has managed to tackle some really serious issues like grief, depression and suicide in a realistically convincing way and on top of that, he still manage to make you laugh. It really a masterful script and the entire cast do a brilliant job in their respective roles.
Overall, this is one of the best things that I have seen this year and I would strongly encourage everyone to give it a go, even if you are not a fan of Gervais or his previous projects. This show can take you from splitting your sides laughing to tearing up in an instant and any piece of art that can make me feel that way is extremely valuable in my eyes. Also the dog is amazing.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Pet peeve
#petsematary is a dire #remake of an already bad #film. Its drab, lifeless & should never of been #reanimated. I had high hopes for this film because it feels like its been a while since the last mainstream horror movie so as I felt genuinely excited but after the first 15 minutes this feeling had quickly been replaced with sheer #fear there was still well over an hour left to go till i could leave. Before we hit the negatives ill give you my positives that saved the movie from being a total walk out. First - #johnlithgow is great as always but mostly wasted largely because of the terrible script he's been given to work with. Second - the running theme of #death is great & the film portrays how all living things fear it so much rather well (it also handles #grieving & guilt #trauma surrounding #death well too but its ultimately far to brief). Now the bad - the movie feels nasty & cheap to look at visually, cgi is bad, make up design is lazy, the camerawork feels awkward & strangely zoomed in just a bit to close to everything, theres weird #90s era motion blur on everything fast moving, acting is laughable/cheesy & scenes go on far to long as does build up to key scenes that have an anticlimactic pay off. If you've seen the original or the trailer for that matter the film becomes highly predictable killing all suspense & what little atmosphere the film conjures up is ruined by naff & bland set design. I honestly cant recomend anyone wasting their time on this highly forgettable film unless your a big fan of really #adorable #cats then this one in this is a clear 10/10 on the #cute scale. An uninspired lazy cash grab & there are a million horror films out there that tell almost the same story way better. #odeon #odeonlimitless #horror #gore #stephenking #scary #cat #animal #pet #classic #retro #cultclassic #80s #filmbuff #filmcritic #zombie
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
May 21, 2019
Good but could've been so much better
I need to be honest, Pokemon has never been a big thing for me. I've never been able to get into the games and whilst I happily watched the show when it was on, I never went out of my way. I did however take my little brother to watch Pokemon: The Movie when it came out, so I cannot tell you how unbelievably happy I was to see Mew 2 in this.
The idea behind this film is genius. Humans and Pokemon living together in the same world, and not only that but these aren't silly awful looking CGI characters, these are truly impressively done creatures that look so realistic and really fit in with the setting of the film. And you can tell they've gone all out on Pikachu, he looks fantastic and so real and adorably cute. Also Ryan Reynolds voicing Pikachu is another smart move. I can't imagine anyone else being able to pull this off quite like he can. And his pairing with Justice Smith works really well. Those two are what keep this film going. And I can't lie, the scene with the Pokemon theme song had me in hysterics it was that funny.
But despite all this, this film felt like it had squandered some of its potential. I was hoping it'd be like Christopher Robin and full of heartwarming, funny and witty moments, but sadly it fell short in all of these areas. There were some moments of humour and some heartwarming scenes but not enough, and I dont think its helped by a patchy script and a mostly (but not completely) predictable plot.
Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy this film. It's an adorably cute piece of nostalgia with some funny moments, it just didnt have quite the magic I was expecting. It has however made me want a cuddly Pikachu toy...
The idea behind this film is genius. Humans and Pokemon living together in the same world, and not only that but these aren't silly awful looking CGI characters, these are truly impressively done creatures that look so realistic and really fit in with the setting of the film. And you can tell they've gone all out on Pikachu, he looks fantastic and so real and adorably cute. Also Ryan Reynolds voicing Pikachu is another smart move. I can't imagine anyone else being able to pull this off quite like he can. And his pairing with Justice Smith works really well. Those two are what keep this film going. And I can't lie, the scene with the Pokemon theme song had me in hysterics it was that funny.
But despite all this, this film felt like it had squandered some of its potential. I was hoping it'd be like Christopher Robin and full of heartwarming, funny and witty moments, but sadly it fell short in all of these areas. There were some moments of humour and some heartwarming scenes but not enough, and I dont think its helped by a patchy script and a mostly (but not completely) predictable plot.
Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy this film. It's an adorably cute piece of nostalgia with some funny moments, it just didnt have quite the magic I was expecting. It has however made me want a cuddly Pikachu toy...