Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Doom (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In a remote section of Mars, something has gone horribly wrong for the scientists of the Union Aerospace Corporation’s research facility. Scientists run screaming for their lives from a deadly threat. Trapped on a barren world against forces unknown, the call goes out for an elite team of specialists to contain the situation, and neutralize the threat at any cost.
In the new game to film adaptation Doom which is based on the phenomenally popular game series of the same name, International Action Star The Rock stars as Sarge, a by the book, no nonsense leader Of a rapid response team who have been tasked with quelling the situation on Mars. His #2 is John (Reaper) Grimm (Karl Urban), the son of two scientists who were killed years earlier in a move that drove John from the Red Planet and into the corps.
Unsure about where his head is Sarge suggests John take leave and skip the mission less he provide an unstable factor. Driven by his concern for his sister on the planet, and his devotion to duty, John accompanies his team to Mars via a teleportation device know as the Arc.
In no time the team has arrived and begun sweeping the affected areas of the base, and working to ensure that nothing can return to Earth without permission. As the team surveys the dark and isolated lab areas, John is also reunited with his sister Sam (Rosamund Pike), which brings up the memories of their dead parents and repressed hostility over his departure and emotional distance.
Of course this is a movie based on monsters and violence, so in no time, there are some strange things lurking in the darkened corridors of the lab and the team finds themselves locked in a series of deadly confrontations against enemies of unimaginable horror.
In short order the team is picked off by the deadly opposition which causes strain amongst the survivors, as it becomes clear that the work being conducted at the base was far from the simple excavations that they had been claiming for years. The truth is far more dangerous and soon has the very safety of Earth in the balance.
The changing dynamic soon divides Sarge and John and they find themselves at odds with not only the creatures but themselves as they battle for survival and the safety of the Earth.
As a fan of the game series I had followed the long development of the film with interest. As production began there were reports that the film would deviate from the game in not being set on Mars and following Zombies more than demons from hell. While the film is set on Mars there is some deviation that may upset fans of the game. Hell does not serve as the source of the enemies; rather it is something that is not present in any of the games. Another deviation is that the film unlike the game is not nonstop action.
Doom moves at a very deliberate pace and when the action comes, it tends to be against a solitary foe. Only for a brief segment near the conclusion of the film do we get a battle against a large mass, and then it is very short. The novel first person perspective shown late in the film was great fun as the audience howled with delight during this segment.
The Rock shows once again that he is a rising Star as his charisma and commanding presence propels the film even though he is a supporting character. No matter the cheese factor, or stiff lines, The Rock is such a compelling presence, he makes the film viewable. Urban is good in the lead role, though he is overshadowed by The Rock, as his strong soft spoken mannerisms seem out of place in a macho action setting.
All of this said, while it is by no means a landmark piece of cinema, Doom is fun, and is easily the best game adaptation to film yet.
In the new game to film adaptation Doom which is based on the phenomenally popular game series of the same name, International Action Star The Rock stars as Sarge, a by the book, no nonsense leader Of a rapid response team who have been tasked with quelling the situation on Mars. His #2 is John (Reaper) Grimm (Karl Urban), the son of two scientists who were killed years earlier in a move that drove John from the Red Planet and into the corps.
Unsure about where his head is Sarge suggests John take leave and skip the mission less he provide an unstable factor. Driven by his concern for his sister on the planet, and his devotion to duty, John accompanies his team to Mars via a teleportation device know as the Arc.
In no time the team has arrived and begun sweeping the affected areas of the base, and working to ensure that nothing can return to Earth without permission. As the team surveys the dark and isolated lab areas, John is also reunited with his sister Sam (Rosamund Pike), which brings up the memories of their dead parents and repressed hostility over his departure and emotional distance.
Of course this is a movie based on monsters and violence, so in no time, there are some strange things lurking in the darkened corridors of the lab and the team finds themselves locked in a series of deadly confrontations against enemies of unimaginable horror.
In short order the team is picked off by the deadly opposition which causes strain amongst the survivors, as it becomes clear that the work being conducted at the base was far from the simple excavations that they had been claiming for years. The truth is far more dangerous and soon has the very safety of Earth in the balance.
The changing dynamic soon divides Sarge and John and they find themselves at odds with not only the creatures but themselves as they battle for survival and the safety of the Earth.
As a fan of the game series I had followed the long development of the film with interest. As production began there were reports that the film would deviate from the game in not being set on Mars and following Zombies more than demons from hell. While the film is set on Mars there is some deviation that may upset fans of the game. Hell does not serve as the source of the enemies; rather it is something that is not present in any of the games. Another deviation is that the film unlike the game is not nonstop action.
Doom moves at a very deliberate pace and when the action comes, it tends to be against a solitary foe. Only for a brief segment near the conclusion of the film do we get a battle against a large mass, and then it is very short. The novel first person perspective shown late in the film was great fun as the audience howled with delight during this segment.
The Rock shows once again that he is a rising Star as his charisma and commanding presence propels the film even though he is a supporting character. No matter the cheese factor, or stiff lines, The Rock is such a compelling presence, he makes the film viewable. Urban is good in the lead role, though he is overshadowed by The Rock, as his strong soft spoken mannerisms seem out of place in a macho action setting.
All of this said, while it is by no means a landmark piece of cinema, Doom is fun, and is easily the best game adaptation to film yet.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Three Complete Novels (Psycho, Psycho II, and Psycho House) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b>Psycho</b>
How can I read and review the book Psycho without comparing it to its movie adaptation? Yeah, not possible. For starters, the biggest difference has to be Norman Bates' physical description, which is balding and dumpy in the book. A far cry from Anthony Perkins. For most of the book I admit to not being able to visualize Norman in a different light than Perkins, who I feel was genius casting. I mean, who in that day and age would ever see that next-door-boy-look as a threat? Other than that, I have to say that the movie is pretty darned true to the book; some minor things but nothing necessary was kept out. I enjoyed Bloch's writing, it's just smooth and easy to read, keeping to a nice clip. The next to last chapter has a bit of an infodump explaining Norman's behavior, but it's short and really didn't bother me. Probably one of the best handled infodumps I've come across. So, I'd definitely recommend reading the book if you enjoy the movie, it adds a little here and there to the film.
<i>4 stars</i>
<b>Psycho II</b>
How do I put this succinctly...? What a total piece of crap.
I thought it started out pretty well, for say about the first 25 or 30 pages, minus Norman's rape of a nun's corpse (which didn't seem in his character IMHO), but then it started going downhill and ended up in a deep, deep well. Bloch's characters and plot are cliche, boring, obnoxious, two-dimensional or a combination of all of the above. The denouement is ridiculous, although not totally unforseen, and it just seemed like Bloch wasn't even interested in writing a proper sequel with Norman Bates and was more interested in showing Hollywood as amoral and vapid. Whatever. I'm glad this is over. I have better things to do with my time, like clean the litter boxes.
<i>1.5 stars</i>
I will eventually get to <b>Psycho House</b> but I need a recovery period so this is going back to the library. I highly doubt that it'll be worse than P2.
How can I read and review the book Psycho without comparing it to its movie adaptation? Yeah, not possible. For starters, the biggest difference has to be Norman Bates' physical description, which is balding and dumpy in the book. A far cry from Anthony Perkins. For most of the book I admit to not being able to visualize Norman in a different light than Perkins, who I feel was genius casting. I mean, who in that day and age would ever see that next-door-boy-look as a threat? Other than that, I have to say that the movie is pretty darned true to the book; some minor things but nothing necessary was kept out. I enjoyed Bloch's writing, it's just smooth and easy to read, keeping to a nice clip. The next to last chapter has a bit of an infodump explaining Norman's behavior, but it's short and really didn't bother me. Probably one of the best handled infodumps I've come across. So, I'd definitely recommend reading the book if you enjoy the movie, it adds a little here and there to the film.
<i>4 stars</i>
<b>Psycho II</b>
How do I put this succinctly...? What a total piece of crap.
I thought it started out pretty well, for say about the first 25 or 30 pages, minus Norman's rape of a nun's corpse (which didn't seem in his character IMHO), but then it started going downhill and ended up in a deep, deep well. Bloch's characters and plot are cliche, boring, obnoxious, two-dimensional or a combination of all of the above. The denouement is ridiculous, although not totally unforseen, and it just seemed like Bloch wasn't even interested in writing a proper sequel with Norman Bates and was more interested in showing Hollywood as amoral and vapid. Whatever. I'm glad this is over. I have better things to do with my time, like clean the litter boxes.
<i>1.5 stars</i>
I will eventually get to <b>Psycho House</b> but I need a recovery period so this is going back to the library. I highly doubt that it'll be worse than P2.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Pirates! An Adventure With Scientists (2012) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Ardman Animation returned to the big screen in 2012 with this adaptation of the Children novel series, The Pirates!.
After building model sets in order to plan out a CGI animation similar to their 2011 Arthur Christmas, they quickly decided to return to their roots and this 3-D adventure was filmed as a stop-motion movie and is much the better for it.
The story itself, whilst following real life characters such as Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin, is pure, adulterated fiction, not quite from the school of Ridley Scott in which he claims to be making historical epics whilst taking liberties, I grant you, but still, I’m still having to explain to my 5 year old daughter that Queen Victoria was a super villain as portrayed here! We follow a crew of Pirates, lead by The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) as he attempts to win the converted pirate of the year but to no avail.
After an encounter with Charles Darwin (David Tennent), he learns that the ships “parrot”, Polly, is in fact a thought to be extinct Dodo and the pair along with his crew, return to England in order to win Scientist Of The Year as well. But Queen Victoria wants the bird, in order to eat it with other world leaders who gather to taste rarest cuisine.
My main issue with this film is that Victoria is presented a villain and this is now how my 5 year old daughter, who loves this film by the way, now looks upon as a baddie! But other than that this is a witty film built on wit. Every frame contains a joke of some kind, whether it be in the background, audible or part of the action.
Ardman’s style is unmistakable and quintessentially British and I suspect that whilst some international audiences will find this quaint, it will probably be lost on many.
But this is an underrated adventure, with lovable characters, villains and all told at a good pace.
Not something to be used for your history homework but still and enjoyable romp none the less.
After building model sets in order to plan out a CGI animation similar to their 2011 Arthur Christmas, they quickly decided to return to their roots and this 3-D adventure was filmed as a stop-motion movie and is much the better for it.
The story itself, whilst following real life characters such as Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin, is pure, adulterated fiction, not quite from the school of Ridley Scott in which he claims to be making historical epics whilst taking liberties, I grant you, but still, I’m still having to explain to my 5 year old daughter that Queen Victoria was a super villain as portrayed here! We follow a crew of Pirates, lead by The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) as he attempts to win the converted pirate of the year but to no avail.
After an encounter with Charles Darwin (David Tennent), he learns that the ships “parrot”, Polly, is in fact a thought to be extinct Dodo and the pair along with his crew, return to England in order to win Scientist Of The Year as well. But Queen Victoria wants the bird, in order to eat it with other world leaders who gather to taste rarest cuisine.
My main issue with this film is that Victoria is presented a villain and this is now how my 5 year old daughter, who loves this film by the way, now looks upon as a baddie! But other than that this is a witty film built on wit. Every frame contains a joke of some kind, whether it be in the background, audible or part of the action.
Ardman’s style is unmistakable and quintessentially British and I suspect that whilst some international audiences will find this quaint, it will probably be lost on many.
But this is an underrated adventure, with lovable characters, villains and all told at a good pace.
Not something to be used for your history homework but still and enjoyable romp none the less.
Sam (74 KP) rated Elizabeth is Missing in Books
Mar 27, 2019
From the start, it’s quite obvious that Elizabeth isn’t actually missing, and Maud is just struggling to understand and remember what has actually happened to Elizabeth. The title leads you to think that the whole book is about Elizabeth, but really the novel focuses a lot on Maud’s childhood in post-war England.
Even though Maud is confused over what is happening in the present, she has a good memory for the past, and especially the events surrounding her sister, Sukey, going missing.
I really loved Maud and it was horrible to see how confused she was. It was even worse to watch all the people who couldn’t understand what was happening, including the police who just laughed every time she went to report Elizabeth as missing.
In Maud’s past, there was a mad old woman who everyone ignored and Maud was scared of. Scarily, I think this old woman foreshadows Maud’s life. People looked at the mad old woman in the same way that people looked at Maud as she became more and more confused, and it is quite sad to see that attitudes haven’t changed at all from the 1940s.
The plot isn’t linear, and it jumps around a lot to follow Maud’s confusion, but I really liked this. I was actually getting inside the mind of Maud, and really seeing how her brain worked, even when she was really confused.
At the end, you get to see that every little thing Maud has said has meant something. Everyone around her has discounted everything she has to say because of her dementia, but you realise that even though she was confused, she knew what she was talking about. She didn’t always get the right words out for what she wanted to say, but she still managed to solve a mystery that everyone other than Maud had forgotten about.
I loved this book. It’s really amazing and is one of the most interesting books I’ve ever read. I’m over the moon that the BBC have bought the rights to it, and I really hope they go through and make an adaptation, because it will be groundbreaking.
Even though Maud is confused over what is happening in the present, she has a good memory for the past, and especially the events surrounding her sister, Sukey, going missing.
I really loved Maud and it was horrible to see how confused she was. It was even worse to watch all the people who couldn’t understand what was happening, including the police who just laughed every time she went to report Elizabeth as missing.
In Maud’s past, there was a mad old woman who everyone ignored and Maud was scared of. Scarily, I think this old woman foreshadows Maud’s life. People looked at the mad old woman in the same way that people looked at Maud as she became more and more confused, and it is quite sad to see that attitudes haven’t changed at all from the 1940s.
The plot isn’t linear, and it jumps around a lot to follow Maud’s confusion, but I really liked this. I was actually getting inside the mind of Maud, and really seeing how her brain worked, even when she was really confused.
At the end, you get to see that every little thing Maud has said has meant something. Everyone around her has discounted everything she has to say because of her dementia, but you realise that even though she was confused, she knew what she was talking about. She didn’t always get the right words out for what she wanted to say, but she still managed to solve a mystery that everyone other than Maud had forgotten about.
I loved this book. It’s really amazing and is one of the most interesting books I’ve ever read. I’m over the moon that the BBC have bought the rights to it, and I really hope they go through and make an adaptation, because it will be groundbreaking.
Louise (64 KP) rated The Heart's Invisible Furies in Books
Jul 2, 2018
*I received a copy of this book from Netgalley and the publisher in exchange for an honest review*
As always I do things back to front, John Boyne is famously known for writing ‘The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas’,I have not got round to reading this book but have watched the film adaptation and found it heart-breaking. Anyway on to his newest book on the market. This book is delightful, laugh out loud hilarious, an emotional rollercoaster and you will no doubt fall in love with Cyril Avery.
The story is told from our protagonist Cyril Avery, the story starts off when he is still in the womb and how he came to be put up for adoption and then every 7 years thereafter. The whole book follows Cyril throughout his whole life and the struggles he comes across living in Dublin in the 1950’s and coming to terms with his identity and sexuality.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and I adored Cyril Avery, he had this awkwardness about him, and seemed to get in some truly awful situations. For him growing up was anything but ordinary, he was adopted by ‘The Avery’s’ but was continuously told that he wasn’t a real Avery and never would be. With his strange adoptive parents, Cyril takes everything in his stride until he meets Julian Woodbead and realises that he might just be attracted to boys.
John Boyne’s writing was breath-taking and I was enchanted from the start – I slowly read this book as I didn’t want it to end. The characters in this book were great and all had amazing personalities. It also shows how homophobic the country was back in the 1950’s and how people were scared to ‘come out’ for fear of being attacked and disowned by family members.
This book does delve in to Irish politics and was something that I had not read before but due to my lack of knowledge was not something that interested me.
This story told by Cyril Avery is about Love, Relationships, Politics, Religion, Violence and Identity.
I rated this 4.25 out of 5 stars
As always I do things back to front, John Boyne is famously known for writing ‘The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas’,I have not got round to reading this book but have watched the film adaptation and found it heart-breaking. Anyway on to his newest book on the market. This book is delightful, laugh out loud hilarious, an emotional rollercoaster and you will no doubt fall in love with Cyril Avery.
The story is told from our protagonist Cyril Avery, the story starts off when he is still in the womb and how he came to be put up for adoption and then every 7 years thereafter. The whole book follows Cyril throughout his whole life and the struggles he comes across living in Dublin in the 1950’s and coming to terms with his identity and sexuality.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and I adored Cyril Avery, he had this awkwardness about him, and seemed to get in some truly awful situations. For him growing up was anything but ordinary, he was adopted by ‘The Avery’s’ but was continuously told that he wasn’t a real Avery and never would be. With his strange adoptive parents, Cyril takes everything in his stride until he meets Julian Woodbead and realises that he might just be attracted to boys.
John Boyne’s writing was breath-taking and I was enchanted from the start – I slowly read this book as I didn’t want it to end. The characters in this book were great and all had amazing personalities. It also shows how homophobic the country was back in the 1950’s and how people were scared to ‘come out’ for fear of being attacked and disowned by family members.
This book does delve in to Irish politics and was something that I had not read before but due to my lack of knowledge was not something that interested me.
This story told by Cyril Avery is about Love, Relationships, Politics, Religion, Violence and Identity.
I rated this 4.25 out of 5 stars
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Danny Dirks and the Heir of Pendragon in Books
Dec 17, 2018
This ebook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Danny Dirk is and ordinary fourteen year old boy with a passion for baseball, however as he approaches his fifteenth birthday peculiar things begin to happen.
Beginning with the arrival of the new foreman for their apple farm, Danny begins experiencing the impossible. Eventually, Grandfather Pendrake, a surname not unlike Pendragon, reveals that Danny comes from a special lineage, one typically assumed to be a myth; and explains that a particular mythical beast is, in fact, very real.
S. A. Mulraney begins his young adult novel with an interesting prologue that leaves the reader with a range of questions. Firstly, the characters are referred to as 'they' resulting in a feeling of suspense as the reader has no idea whether they are good or bad. It turns out that 'they' are Mr Brennan and his standoffish daughter Kara. However the original use of 'they' leaves the question as to what they are, which is heightened by words such as 'scales' and 'wings' as well as the suggestion that they can communicate with dragonflies.
Danny Dirk and the Heir of Pendragon is an exciting novel. Although it felt a little slow to start, the story picks up towards the end and concludes on a cliffhanger leaving the reader eager for the next book.
Although the main character is in his mid teens, the writing style is suitable for boys and girls in their earlier teens and upwards, however there are some scenes that are more appropriate for readers with a maturer outlook.
This novel will attract a range of interest particularly for those who prefer a book that is quick and easy to read. It should also attract the attention of those with a preference for the fantasy genre, especially about dragons, and also those who enjoy myths and legends, in particularly the legendary king of England, King Arthur.
Mulraney's adaptation of the history of King Arthur is original and intriguing, and his version of dragons are very creative.
This review uses a rating on the basis on personal preference but it is sure to be loved by the intended target audience.
Danny Dirk is and ordinary fourteen year old boy with a passion for baseball, however as he approaches his fifteenth birthday peculiar things begin to happen.
Beginning with the arrival of the new foreman for their apple farm, Danny begins experiencing the impossible. Eventually, Grandfather Pendrake, a surname not unlike Pendragon, reveals that Danny comes from a special lineage, one typically assumed to be a myth; and explains that a particular mythical beast is, in fact, very real.
S. A. Mulraney begins his young adult novel with an interesting prologue that leaves the reader with a range of questions. Firstly, the characters are referred to as 'they' resulting in a feeling of suspense as the reader has no idea whether they are good or bad. It turns out that 'they' are Mr Brennan and his standoffish daughter Kara. However the original use of 'they' leaves the question as to what they are, which is heightened by words such as 'scales' and 'wings' as well as the suggestion that they can communicate with dragonflies.
Danny Dirk and the Heir of Pendragon is an exciting novel. Although it felt a little slow to start, the story picks up towards the end and concludes on a cliffhanger leaving the reader eager for the next book.
Although the main character is in his mid teens, the writing style is suitable for boys and girls in their earlier teens and upwards, however there are some scenes that are more appropriate for readers with a maturer outlook.
This novel will attract a range of interest particularly for those who prefer a book that is quick and easy to read. It should also attract the attention of those with a preference for the fantasy genre, especially about dragons, and also those who enjoy myths and legends, in particularly the legendary king of England, King Arthur.
Mulraney's adaptation of the history of King Arthur is original and intriguing, and his version of dragons are very creative.
This review uses a rating on the basis on personal preference but it is sure to be loved by the intended target audience.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Year One (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
I had no idea what to expect with “Year One”. Would it be another flop like “Nacho Libre”? How does Michael Cera fit into this kind of film? Could this be unexpected comedy gold reminiscent of the 1981 Mel Brook’s classic “History of the World: Part I”?
“Year One” follows the journey of two cavemen, Zed (Jack Black) and Oh (Michael Cera), through a comedic adaptation of early mankind. Zed and Oh are lowly members of their tribe rebuffed by the women they desire. Desperate to be something more Zed consumes the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge and is immediately out casted from his tribe. Oh joins Zed and the two begin a trip encountering fractured Biblical stories and characters.
Eventually our heroes are led into the lecherous city of Sodom, where they find the tribe and their ladyloves have been taken as slaves. As the two attempt to free the women from a life of slavery eccentric vaguely plotted comedy ensues.
The cast, filled with the usual silly suspects, includes Paul Rudd as Abel, Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Issac, and Vinnie Jones as Sargon. But do not expect their normal brand of comedy because it has been replaced with visually graphic potty humor.
The sets and costumes are well created but near impossible to notice when there is a pile of sheep innards being interpreted by Oliver Platt, who plays the High Priest. The few interesting one-liners fail to save “Year One” from an aura similar to “Austin Powers in Goldmember“.
Why after great films like “School of Rock” and “Be Kind Rewind” is Jack Black purposely trying to end his career? Moreover, why has he decided to take Michael Cera with him? As for Michael Cera this awful sort of humor is not going to lead him out of the valley of “Juno” fandom.
The flick is better than “Nacho Libre”, but it is not comedy gold. If you enjoy simple potty humor you should definitely see the film, but if not plan to borrow the DVD from a friend only to be happy you did not purchase it.
“Year One” follows the journey of two cavemen, Zed (Jack Black) and Oh (Michael Cera), through a comedic adaptation of early mankind. Zed and Oh are lowly members of their tribe rebuffed by the women they desire. Desperate to be something more Zed consumes the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge and is immediately out casted from his tribe. Oh joins Zed and the two begin a trip encountering fractured Biblical stories and characters.
Eventually our heroes are led into the lecherous city of Sodom, where they find the tribe and their ladyloves have been taken as slaves. As the two attempt to free the women from a life of slavery eccentric vaguely plotted comedy ensues.
The cast, filled with the usual silly suspects, includes Paul Rudd as Abel, Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Issac, and Vinnie Jones as Sargon. But do not expect their normal brand of comedy because it has been replaced with visually graphic potty humor.
The sets and costumes are well created but near impossible to notice when there is a pile of sheep innards being interpreted by Oliver Platt, who plays the High Priest. The few interesting one-liners fail to save “Year One” from an aura similar to “Austin Powers in Goldmember“.
Why after great films like “School of Rock” and “Be Kind Rewind” is Jack Black purposely trying to end his career? Moreover, why has he decided to take Michael Cera with him? As for Michael Cera this awful sort of humor is not going to lead him out of the valley of “Juno” fandom.
The flick is better than “Nacho Libre”, but it is not comedy gold. If you enjoy simple potty humor you should definitely see the film, but if not plan to borrow the DVD from a friend only to be happy you did not purchase it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
With the faction system thrown out of balance, Jeanine Matthews(Kate Winslet) the leader of Erudite needs to find someone who can open a box with the answer to fix it all. Unfortunately, only a special Divergent can open the box, and Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) is that one. Based on Veronica Roth’s bestselling book Insurgent comes second installment of The Divergent Series: Insurgent.
With Tris, Four (Theo James), Peter (Miles Teller) and Caleb (Ansel Elgort) on the run from Eric (Jai Courtney) and other members of the Dauntless who follow Erudite. Now being blamed for the attack on Abnegation Tris and the others must fight to stay alive; to do so they seek refuge with Amity. From that point on Tris and Four realize they must find the rest of the Dauntless to stop Jeanine from slaughtering anymore innocent lives. With betrayal, alliances, and having to face the truth; Tris struggles to forgive herself for the events that happened in Divergent. Will the truth set her free or will she get herself killed?
The second installment of the Divergent franchise brings a strong focus to plot progression and more so action. With the main characters on the run the pace of the movie is fast and keeps the viewer entertained. Be warned though, the 3D is kind of a pain; since a lot of the scenes having running or speedy shots the glasses definitely took away from the experience. If I were to go see it again it would be 2D for me. The acting between the two stars Shailene Woodley and Theo James is a homerun; the chemistry from the first movie did not fade in the second! However, one problem I had with this film is the soundtrack; I feel the first movie had such a dynamic background track. Unfortunately, this film’s soundtrack really did not stand out as must as the first one.
I would recommend this movie to anyone who loved the first one, but to the fans of the books I would take it with a grain of salt. It’s not exactly like the book, but as a fan of the books and the first movie I thought it was a great adaptation.
With Tris, Four (Theo James), Peter (Miles Teller) and Caleb (Ansel Elgort) on the run from Eric (Jai Courtney) and other members of the Dauntless who follow Erudite. Now being blamed for the attack on Abnegation Tris and the others must fight to stay alive; to do so they seek refuge with Amity. From that point on Tris and Four realize they must find the rest of the Dauntless to stop Jeanine from slaughtering anymore innocent lives. With betrayal, alliances, and having to face the truth; Tris struggles to forgive herself for the events that happened in Divergent. Will the truth set her free or will she get herself killed?
The second installment of the Divergent franchise brings a strong focus to plot progression and more so action. With the main characters on the run the pace of the movie is fast and keeps the viewer entertained. Be warned though, the 3D is kind of a pain; since a lot of the scenes having running or speedy shots the glasses definitely took away from the experience. If I were to go see it again it would be 2D for me. The acting between the two stars Shailene Woodley and Theo James is a homerun; the chemistry from the first movie did not fade in the second! However, one problem I had with this film is the soundtrack; I feel the first movie had such a dynamic background track. Unfortunately, this film’s soundtrack really did not stand out as must as the first one.
I would recommend this movie to anyone who loved the first one, but to the fans of the books I would take it with a grain of salt. It’s not exactly like the book, but as a fan of the books and the first movie I thought it was a great adaptation.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) Feb 24, 2020