Search
Search results
Garth Marenghi's Darkplace
8.5
Rate It
TV Show Watch
Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is a British horror parody television series created for Channel 4 by...
Star Wars Legends Epic Collection: The Original Marvel Years, Vol. 2
Chris Claremont, Archie Goodwin, Mary Jo Duffy and Michael Golden
7.5
Rate It
Book
Marvel's original exploration of the Star Wars galaxy continues - and all your favorites are along...
Complete Jack the Ripper
8.7
Rate It
Book
Fully updated and revised, Donald Rumbelow's classic work is the ultimate examination of the facts,...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
Well Acted
In 2012, the conservative Pope Benedict - citing failing health - made the rare move of stepping down from the Papacy. He was, ultimately, replaced by the more Liberal Pope Francis. THE TWO POPES is a fictional account of a conversation that these two men had prior to Benedict's stepping down.
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
DeepDish GigBook
Music and Productivity
App
DeepDish GigBook turns your iPad into a truly accessible mobile musical library, keeping your...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Elvis (2022) in Movies
Jun 28, 2022
Butler Shines
Director Baz Luhrmann is one of those artists that I always keep an eye out for. His artistic vision is unique and while the films he directs don’t always work - MOULIN ROUGE is on of my all-time favorites, AUSTRALIA is a mess and his take on the GREAT GATSBY works…mostly - but the one thing that can be said about him is that his projects are always interesting (especially visually). So when he decided to create a bio-pic of “The King”, Elvis Presley, I was intrigued.
And…the resulting film - appropriately called ELVIS - works very well, but not because of Luhrmann’s Direction/Style but more because of the TERRIFIC performance at the center of this picture - and, no, I’m not talking about Tom Hanks as Col. Parker.
ELVIS follows - with the usual Luhrmann quick/cut, flashy style - the rise, fall, rise and (ultimately) death of Elvis Presley. Starting with his boyhood in Tupelo, Mississippi - where he found his rhythm in the roots of African-American Gospel/Spirituals - to his ascension to superstar, this films tries to tell it all, mostly through the shadowy viewpoint of Elvis’ Manager, Col. Tom Parker (a heavily made-up Tom Hanks).
And that is part of the problem with this film - it tries to tell TOO big a story, so while some items are covered in slow, glowing detail (like Elvis’ discovery of the music that will be his trademark), while other items (his movie career) are glossed over quickly in a montage. This is out of necessity, for this film is already 2 hours and 40 minutes long, but it does make this film feel somewhat disjointed - especially when you add Luhrmann’s trademark disorienting quick/cut, stylistic directing style. At times I just wanted to yell at Lurhman to lock his camera down in one position so my eyes (and brain) can settle down and watch what’s going on.
The other issue is the viewpoint of this film - it isn’t consistent. Is this a movie about Elvis? Is this a movie about a conman manipulating Elvis? It starts out following Col. Parker as he discovers Elvis and manipulates him to be his exclusive act, but then we leave Col. Tom and follow Elvis for long periods of time before being drawn back into Col’s Parker’s web, so there is confusion as to who’s story we are telling. In the end we tell both, and each one suffers a little bit because of this.
HOWEVER - and this is an important point - these issues are pushed to the back as minor flaws as the central performance of Austin Butler (Wil Ohmsford in the terrible adaption of THE SHANNARA CHRONICLES on TV) as Elvis is AMAZING. It is a captivating, multi-layered performance both on-stage and off. He has created a character that you are drawn to watch and the off-stage Elvis sets the stage for the charismatic, on-stage Elvis that we all know. Butler did his own singing/performing in this film and it is much, much more that “just” an Elvis impersonation. He personifies “The King” and Butler’s name better be called at Awards time. It is that good of a performance, one that should catapult this young man to stardom.
Fairing less well is Tom Hanks as Col. Parker. While he is game under all that make-up, the character is just not written with any nuance and comes off as a one-dimensional villain, constantly lurking in the background. This character just wasn’t interesting enough to hold the screen - especially against Butler.
But see this film to rekindle the spirit of Elvis through the interpretation of Butler, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the resulting film - appropriately called ELVIS - works very well, but not because of Luhrmann’s Direction/Style but more because of the TERRIFIC performance at the center of this picture - and, no, I’m not talking about Tom Hanks as Col. Parker.
ELVIS follows - with the usual Luhrmann quick/cut, flashy style - the rise, fall, rise and (ultimately) death of Elvis Presley. Starting with his boyhood in Tupelo, Mississippi - where he found his rhythm in the roots of African-American Gospel/Spirituals - to his ascension to superstar, this films tries to tell it all, mostly through the shadowy viewpoint of Elvis’ Manager, Col. Tom Parker (a heavily made-up Tom Hanks).
And that is part of the problem with this film - it tries to tell TOO big a story, so while some items are covered in slow, glowing detail (like Elvis’ discovery of the music that will be his trademark), while other items (his movie career) are glossed over quickly in a montage. This is out of necessity, for this film is already 2 hours and 40 minutes long, but it does make this film feel somewhat disjointed - especially when you add Luhrmann’s trademark disorienting quick/cut, stylistic directing style. At times I just wanted to yell at Lurhman to lock his camera down in one position so my eyes (and brain) can settle down and watch what’s going on.
The other issue is the viewpoint of this film - it isn’t consistent. Is this a movie about Elvis? Is this a movie about a conman manipulating Elvis? It starts out following Col. Parker as he discovers Elvis and manipulates him to be his exclusive act, but then we leave Col. Tom and follow Elvis for long periods of time before being drawn back into Col’s Parker’s web, so there is confusion as to who’s story we are telling. In the end we tell both, and each one suffers a little bit because of this.
HOWEVER - and this is an important point - these issues are pushed to the back as minor flaws as the central performance of Austin Butler (Wil Ohmsford in the terrible adaption of THE SHANNARA CHRONICLES on TV) as Elvis is AMAZING. It is a captivating, multi-layered performance both on-stage and off. He has created a character that you are drawn to watch and the off-stage Elvis sets the stage for the charismatic, on-stage Elvis that we all know. Butler did his own singing/performing in this film and it is much, much more that “just” an Elvis impersonation. He personifies “The King” and Butler’s name better be called at Awards time. It is that good of a performance, one that should catapult this young man to stardom.
Fairing less well is Tom Hanks as Col. Parker. While he is game under all that make-up, the character is just not written with any nuance and comes off as a one-dimensional villain, constantly lurking in the background. This character just wasn’t interesting enough to hold the screen - especially against Butler.
But see this film to rekindle the spirit of Elvis through the interpretation of Butler, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated The Child in Books
Jan 20, 2018 (Updated Jan 20, 2018)
Good twist at the end
Fiona Barton's thrillers are always very accessible, it truly feels like you're reading an updated whodunit. The story surrounds various women with lots of secrets, that seem to emerge after the discovery of the remains of a baby at a building site.
Emma, a neurotic writer, her cold mother Jude, the mother of a missing infant Angelica, and of course, journalist Kate Walker take centre stage in this book. Each voice is unique with Kate being driven and ambitious, Emma appearing secretive, and the fragile Angelica breaking down fairly regularly. In this way, you're unlikely to become confused as the characters are distinct.
No doubt, a lot does happen so there is a question of whether Barton may have overdone the story. However, the last twist at the end was less obvious than the others and so the story concluded satisfactorily. An enjoyable read.
Emma, a neurotic writer, her cold mother Jude, the mother of a missing infant Angelica, and of course, journalist Kate Walker take centre stage in this book. Each voice is unique with Kate being driven and ambitious, Emma appearing secretive, and the fragile Angelica breaking down fairly regularly. In this way, you're unlikely to become confused as the characters are distinct.
No doubt, a lot does happen so there is a question of whether Barton may have overdone the story. However, the last twist at the end was less obvious than the others and so the story concluded satisfactorily. An enjoyable read.