Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Important Movie
Set in the 1970’s, the first black police officer on the Colorado Springs police force attempts to infiltrate the Klu Klux Klan by becoming one of them.
Acting: 10
I don’t know who I liked better throughout the movie, John David Washington as Ron Stallworth or Adam Driver playing Jewish cop Flip Zimmerman. Not only were they amazing individually, but they complimented each other with great chemistry on screen. Whatever emotion director Spike Lee was trying to make you feel was amplified in their joint scenes. Washington is charming, funny, and witty, all the things you want from a leading role. His heroic character is one of my favorites from the year.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The visuals are amazingly crisp, poignant for each scene. It transports you perfectly into the time period without feeling overdone. While the film is largely a comedy, it succeeds in spots by relying on tension and intense moments. Spike Lee has a way of capturing those moments with sheer perfection. It has an artsy feel to it, sometimes over the top, but never unrelatable. Relatable Art. I think that’s the best way to describe it.
Conflict: 10
Whether subtle or in your face, conflict comes in waves throughout BlackkKlansman. You keep waiting for bad things to happen and sometimes they do. When they don’t, you know it’s only a matter of time before things get harry again. There was never a point where I was bored in the movie. Even the planning scenes where they were trying to figure out just how to get a black man to infiltrate a white supremacist organization was fun to watch.
Genre: 10
One of the most important dramas of our generation. Period. Nothing else needs to be said here.
Memorability: 10
The story in and of itself brings an originality you won’t soon forget. On paper, it sounds absolutely nuts. Watching it unfold on the big screen is even more nuts. Even though it’s based on a true story, it’s still very much hard to believe. It’s powerful and real with solid messaging that translates to the now. Even the comedy in certain moments has a way of leaving a real impact.
Pace: 10
The film is long, but it’s a smooth long. The pacing feels like a brisk jog. You always know the direction you’re heading and it never feels like it has to cheat or take shortcuts to properly tell the story. Not boring in the least. Engaging and entertaining throughout.
Plot: 8
Again, much respect for an original story. My one gripe: I don’t think the love story was necessary. It didn’t really contribute to the movie as a whole. Everything outside of that was wonderful and beautifully done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Expected to like BlackkKlansman, but I fell in love with this movie. It tells a wonderful story that leaves you talking long after it’s over. I’ve said this already, but it bears repeating: This is one of the most important films of our generation. See it. Don’t think twice.
Acting: 10
I don’t know who I liked better throughout the movie, John David Washington as Ron Stallworth or Adam Driver playing Jewish cop Flip Zimmerman. Not only were they amazing individually, but they complimented each other with great chemistry on screen. Whatever emotion director Spike Lee was trying to make you feel was amplified in their joint scenes. Washington is charming, funny, and witty, all the things you want from a leading role. His heroic character is one of my favorites from the year.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The visuals are amazingly crisp, poignant for each scene. It transports you perfectly into the time period without feeling overdone. While the film is largely a comedy, it succeeds in spots by relying on tension and intense moments. Spike Lee has a way of capturing those moments with sheer perfection. It has an artsy feel to it, sometimes over the top, but never unrelatable. Relatable Art. I think that’s the best way to describe it.
Conflict: 10
Whether subtle or in your face, conflict comes in waves throughout BlackkKlansman. You keep waiting for bad things to happen and sometimes they do. When they don’t, you know it’s only a matter of time before things get harry again. There was never a point where I was bored in the movie. Even the planning scenes where they were trying to figure out just how to get a black man to infiltrate a white supremacist organization was fun to watch.
Genre: 10
One of the most important dramas of our generation. Period. Nothing else needs to be said here.
Memorability: 10
The story in and of itself brings an originality you won’t soon forget. On paper, it sounds absolutely nuts. Watching it unfold on the big screen is even more nuts. Even though it’s based on a true story, it’s still very much hard to believe. It’s powerful and real with solid messaging that translates to the now. Even the comedy in certain moments has a way of leaving a real impact.
Pace: 10
The film is long, but it’s a smooth long. The pacing feels like a brisk jog. You always know the direction you’re heading and it never feels like it has to cheat or take shortcuts to properly tell the story. Not boring in the least. Engaging and entertaining throughout.
Plot: 8
Again, much respect for an original story. My one gripe: I don’t think the love story was necessary. It didn’t really contribute to the movie as a whole. Everything outside of that was wonderful and beautifully done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Expected to like BlackkKlansman, but I fell in love with this movie. It tells a wonderful story that leaves you talking long after it’s over. I’ve said this already, but it bears repeating: This is one of the most important films of our generation. See it. Don’t think twice.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Give Me Your Hand in Books
Mar 10, 2019
Dark, intense, and compelling psychological thriller
Kit Owens is surviving high school but not living up to her true potential when Diane Fleming arrives at her school. Diane awakens a fire in Kit and the two form an unlikely friendship that propels Kit to academic success in her senior year. She and Diane study together and push each other to reach to be the best. Kit can't help but feel bad for her friend, who lives with her grandfather after the death of her dad. But all that changes when Diane shares an explosive secret with Kit, one that changes the way she views Diane and basically ends their friendship. Ten years later, Kit has tried to put Diane (and her secret) behind her. She's working in the lab of a female scientist, Dr. Severin, whom she's idolized for years--a woman Diane first helped introduce her to. But when Dr. Severin earns a prestigious grant and Kit learns that Diane is suddenly in the running for one of the coveted spots to work with the Doctor on the research, the past comes rushing back. Soon Diane and Kit find themselves over their head, with secrets and horror lurking around every corner.
So, I wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this one as I started it, but it grew on me. It's not really a pleasant read, at all, and none of the characters are ones you'll really love, but it's very compelling and there's a slow, foreboding creepiness that keeps you reading. I read this one quickly, as it's dark, twisty, and intense and very easy-to-read (as in, a page-turner, not the subject matter).
"My mom always say, you don't have a self until you have a secret." ~Diane
The novel flips between the "then" and "now" format, with Kit narrating to us. It's a female-centered book, and it easily depicts women's uphill battle in the workplace. It also shows the complicated feelings of our female characters: Kit has a lot of thoughts. Her struggle from a poor high school student to doctor is a fascinating one, even if I found her hard to empathize with. You won't necessarily agree with a lot of these characters' (sometimes outlandish) choices, but you'll find them oddly fascinating. I enjoyed how the novel delved into the darkness of friendship--and some of the competition that can come with it. Diane and Kit's relationship is dark and intense, as is the entire novel, really. The secrets that layer this book unravel slowly and eerily, and it really does keep you reading.
I especially thought this one was redeemed or bolstered by its ending; often a thriller is so good and then deflates at the end, but I actually thought this one got a little better at the end. The ending is really well-done, and I didn't feel let down whatsoever.
Overall, this is a dark, intense, and compelling psychological thriller. It's not exactly packed with loveable characters, but they are flawed, interesting, and--at times--quite creepy. You'll be drawn in by its twisty plot and complicated portrayal of friendship and secrets.
So, I wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this one as I started it, but it grew on me. It's not really a pleasant read, at all, and none of the characters are ones you'll really love, but it's very compelling and there's a slow, foreboding creepiness that keeps you reading. I read this one quickly, as it's dark, twisty, and intense and very easy-to-read (as in, a page-turner, not the subject matter).
"My mom always say, you don't have a self until you have a secret." ~Diane
The novel flips between the "then" and "now" format, with Kit narrating to us. It's a female-centered book, and it easily depicts women's uphill battle in the workplace. It also shows the complicated feelings of our female characters: Kit has a lot of thoughts. Her struggle from a poor high school student to doctor is a fascinating one, even if I found her hard to empathize with. You won't necessarily agree with a lot of these characters' (sometimes outlandish) choices, but you'll find them oddly fascinating. I enjoyed how the novel delved into the darkness of friendship--and some of the competition that can come with it. Diane and Kit's relationship is dark and intense, as is the entire novel, really. The secrets that layer this book unravel slowly and eerily, and it really does keep you reading.
I especially thought this one was redeemed or bolstered by its ending; often a thriller is so good and then deflates at the end, but I actually thought this one got a little better at the end. The ending is really well-done, and I didn't feel let down whatsoever.
Overall, this is a dark, intense, and compelling psychological thriller. It's not exactly packed with loveable characters, but they are flawed, interesting, and--at times--quite creepy. You'll be drawn in by its twisty plot and complicated portrayal of friendship and secrets.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Golden Tresses of the Dead in Books
Apr 4, 2019 (Updated Apr 8, 2019)
Love Flavia but a letdown for the series ending
Flavia's sister, Feely, is finally getting married. But at the wedding, as Feely and Dieter cut their cake, Feely slices into a human finger! How very Flavia! It's certainly a case for Arthur W. Dogger & Associates, with Flavia being the main associate, of course. And, not long after, the two are hired by a Mrs. Prill to help track down some missing letters. Flavia and Dogger barely know where to focus first. Then someone else winds up dead--with Flavia and Dogger in the thick of things--and things spiral from there..
"Aside from that-except for the human remains-it was a beautiful occasion."
So says Flavia of Feely's wedding, in very Flavia fashion. By now, if you've read the first nine books in this series, this one will feel quite familiar and sweet to you. Flavia is her usual fun, clever self, and I can't help but love her to pieces. She's up to her usual tricks in her laboratory and busy working away with her beloved Dogger, who may be the best butler/sidekick/friend in the history of mystery novels.
"I'd like to remark at the outset that I'm a girl with better than an average brain."
These books are always wonderfully descriptive, and I love seeing the world from Flavia's unique point of view:
"I don't know if you've ever dissected a rat, but to me, there was only one word for it: exhilarating."
Flavia and Dogger have two cases to solve here--and they intersect quickly. We get plenty of Flavia and Dogger time, which is great. Unfortunately, Feely is shipped off on her honeymoon, and we barely see any of Daffy. I missed the usual sarcasm and biting wit that comes with de Luce sister time. There is more of Flavia's cousin, Undine, who I admit is growing on me (and perhaps Flavia?). She will be a good companion Flavia, I think.
Sadly, though, I've read in several places that this is the last of the Flavia de Luce series. If so, this book felt woefully unresolved on several fronts for me. The mysteries felt underwhelming, as if the loose ends didn't really tie together; I was confused about how it all wrapped up in the end. And if this is really the last book, it just didn't seem as if it did our amazing heroine justice. Flavia went out with a whimper, not a bang. I would have liked to see more finality, more resolution somehow, instead of some partially ended cases and no real conclusion. It just didn't feel like a satisfactory end to what has been an amazing series featuring such a plucky girl who has been through so very much.
Still, I'm really glad I've had a chance to read this series, and I certainly enjoyed this book and all of Flavia's adventures. She's such a fun, unique character, and I can't recommend this lovely series enough.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"Aside from that-except for the human remains-it was a beautiful occasion."
So says Flavia of Feely's wedding, in very Flavia fashion. By now, if you've read the first nine books in this series, this one will feel quite familiar and sweet to you. Flavia is her usual fun, clever self, and I can't help but love her to pieces. She's up to her usual tricks in her laboratory and busy working away with her beloved Dogger, who may be the best butler/sidekick/friend in the history of mystery novels.
"I'd like to remark at the outset that I'm a girl with better than an average brain."
These books are always wonderfully descriptive, and I love seeing the world from Flavia's unique point of view:
"I don't know if you've ever dissected a rat, but to me, there was only one word for it: exhilarating."
Flavia and Dogger have two cases to solve here--and they intersect quickly. We get plenty of Flavia and Dogger time, which is great. Unfortunately, Feely is shipped off on her honeymoon, and we barely see any of Daffy. I missed the usual sarcasm and biting wit that comes with de Luce sister time. There is more of Flavia's cousin, Undine, who I admit is growing on me (and perhaps Flavia?). She will be a good companion Flavia, I think.
Sadly, though, I've read in several places that this is the last of the Flavia de Luce series. If so, this book felt woefully unresolved on several fronts for me. The mysteries felt underwhelming, as if the loose ends didn't really tie together; I was confused about how it all wrapped up in the end. And if this is really the last book, it just didn't seem as if it did our amazing heroine justice. Flavia went out with a whimper, not a bang. I would have liked to see more finality, more resolution somehow, instead of some partially ended cases and no real conclusion. It just didn't feel like a satisfactory end to what has been an amazing series featuring such a plucky girl who has been through so very much.
Still, I'm really glad I've had a chance to read this series, and I certainly enjoyed this book and all of Flavia's adventures. She's such a fun, unique character, and I can't recommend this lovely series enough.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Rikki Hammond (33 KP) rated Carcassonne in Tabletop Games
May 23, 2019
Easy to learn (2 more)
Quick To Play
Plays well for all age groups and player counts
Not Much Variety (1 more)
Hardcore gamers might see this as too simple.
The Perfect Gateway Euro
Carcassonne is probably one of the most recognised tile games in the world today, and it's easy to see why so many people have enjoyed it, as it is super easy to teach and pick up, and works well no matter the age group you're playing with.
The rules of Carcassonne are very simple. Each player will pick a random tile from a stack, and starting with the first player (who always starts with the same beginning tile) will place their tile, so that it connects to one or more adjacent tiles. Each tile will have a road, city or church on it. Roads can only connect with roads, cities with cities, and churches around either of these.
Once a tile is placed, the player can then choose to place one of their meeples on it, either on a road, city, church, or surrounding field. Once that particular area is completed (a road connects to a town, city or church on either end or a city is completely walled around) then that meeple scores you points. 1 point for each section of road per tile, 2 points for each city piece per tile (double if that city tile has a shield on it) and you will score 9 points if you manage to completely surround a church with 8 other tiles. Once the meeple scores, the player removes it from the tile, and can be used again on another tile.
Play continues like this until the tile stack is depleted, then some endgame scoring occurs, where unfinished roads, churches and cities score 1 point per tile in the area. If farmers were used (laying a meeple face down on a field) then 3 points are scored per completed city in that field area. If ever two meeples share the same city, road or field through future tile placements, then each player will get the same points, and whoever has the most points at the end, is the winner.
Carcassone plays between 2 to 5 players, and having played with all player counts, I can say that it plays well, no matter how many players are there. The components are great. The tiles are colourful, and one the game is over, you can build some pretty impressive landscapes. Each player will have different coloured meeples, so it's easy to tell whose is whose, and the score tracker is a handy addition.
My only criticisms I can find is that, after playing a few games, you find that there's not much in the way of variety when it comes to placement of the tiles, and some more hardcore gamers could class this game as too simple. But these are very minor niggles.
Personally, I think Carcassonne is a fantastic first step for people who may not have played many board or tile games before, and if you do get tired if it, there are tonnes of expansions for it, which can add more variety to the game.
The rules of Carcassonne are very simple. Each player will pick a random tile from a stack, and starting with the first player (who always starts with the same beginning tile) will place their tile, so that it connects to one or more adjacent tiles. Each tile will have a road, city or church on it. Roads can only connect with roads, cities with cities, and churches around either of these.
Once a tile is placed, the player can then choose to place one of their meeples on it, either on a road, city, church, or surrounding field. Once that particular area is completed (a road connects to a town, city or church on either end or a city is completely walled around) then that meeple scores you points. 1 point for each section of road per tile, 2 points for each city piece per tile (double if that city tile has a shield on it) and you will score 9 points if you manage to completely surround a church with 8 other tiles. Once the meeple scores, the player removes it from the tile, and can be used again on another tile.
Play continues like this until the tile stack is depleted, then some endgame scoring occurs, where unfinished roads, churches and cities score 1 point per tile in the area. If farmers were used (laying a meeple face down on a field) then 3 points are scored per completed city in that field area. If ever two meeples share the same city, road or field through future tile placements, then each player will get the same points, and whoever has the most points at the end, is the winner.
Carcassone plays between 2 to 5 players, and having played with all player counts, I can say that it plays well, no matter how many players are there. The components are great. The tiles are colourful, and one the game is over, you can build some pretty impressive landscapes. Each player will have different coloured meeples, so it's easy to tell whose is whose, and the score tracker is a handy addition.
My only criticisms I can find is that, after playing a few games, you find that there's not much in the way of variety when it comes to placement of the tiles, and some more hardcore gamers could class this game as too simple. But these are very minor niggles.
Personally, I think Carcassonne is a fantastic first step for people who may not have played many board or tile games before, and if you do get tired if it, there are tonnes of expansions for it, which can add more variety to the game.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Vendetta in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Vendetta by Iris Johansen brings back characters introduced in the Eve Duncan books. Although it is billed as an “Eve Duncan” she is only mentioned briefly. But, this does not take anything away from the plot and the main characters, Rachel Venable and Jude Brandon. The story centers on these two and their attempts to bring down Max Huber, the head of Red Star, a terrorist organization with immense power.
The story begins with the shooting of a top CIA official, Carl Venable. His dying breath to the operative, Jude Brandon, to save his daughter, Dr. Rachel Venable, and give her the choice of eliminating Huber to prevent him from wreaking further havoc on a global scale. Huber wants revenge on Rachel, believing that she killed his father by poisoning him. Enlisting the help of her good friend, CIA operative Catherine Ling and her on again, off again boyfriend, Richard Cameron, they work together to bring Huber down.
Johansen noted, “Every other chapter has a choice come into play. It is all about making choices. Rachel had to decide if she would go after the bad guys. Brandon whether he would involve himself emotionally with Rachel. Catherine made the choice not to hide from her desire for Cameron, as well as knowing she had to give Rachel space and control over her own destiny. The bad guy Huber is pure evil without redeeming qualities and his choice was to inflict as much collateral damage as possible. Even though I have a choice as a writer, I just wanted to kill Huber for doing terrible things to the people I love in my books.”
Both Rachel and Catherine had similar experiences of having to overcome rape. At the age of fifteen Rachel was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, watched them kill her mother and brother, and was brutally raped as well as tortured. What Johansen does wonderfully is to show how Rachel is determined to overcome her past experiences. One of the reasons she becomes a medical doctor is to heal people. Both Catherine and Rachel are intelligent, tough, strong, independent, and stubborn.
The book quote has Rachel determined to not be seen as a cripple. “I wrote that because I consider it the bravest thing she ever said. She went through a terrible event, but she fought and conquered it. Catherine also had a tough life, growing up on the Hong Kong waterfronts. She learned from it to become stronger. These two women are more similar than different. They had rough teenage years that they had to overcome. I think they are more sisters than friends and will always go to bat for each other. I think Catherine is more like the older sister because she has a son, which makes a big difference.”
Johansen writes female characters that are something other than constant damsels in distress. They find a way to survive and have come out even stronger. This story shows how a character’s past and the decisions made influence the present and future, sometimes to the point of getting revenge by pursuing a vendetta.
The story begins with the shooting of a top CIA official, Carl Venable. His dying breath to the operative, Jude Brandon, to save his daughter, Dr. Rachel Venable, and give her the choice of eliminating Huber to prevent him from wreaking further havoc on a global scale. Huber wants revenge on Rachel, believing that she killed his father by poisoning him. Enlisting the help of her good friend, CIA operative Catherine Ling and her on again, off again boyfriend, Richard Cameron, they work together to bring Huber down.
Johansen noted, “Every other chapter has a choice come into play. It is all about making choices. Rachel had to decide if she would go after the bad guys. Brandon whether he would involve himself emotionally with Rachel. Catherine made the choice not to hide from her desire for Cameron, as well as knowing she had to give Rachel space and control over her own destiny. The bad guy Huber is pure evil without redeeming qualities and his choice was to inflict as much collateral damage as possible. Even though I have a choice as a writer, I just wanted to kill Huber for doing terrible things to the people I love in my books.”
Both Rachel and Catherine had similar experiences of having to overcome rape. At the age of fifteen Rachel was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, watched them kill her mother and brother, and was brutally raped as well as tortured. What Johansen does wonderfully is to show how Rachel is determined to overcome her past experiences. One of the reasons she becomes a medical doctor is to heal people. Both Catherine and Rachel are intelligent, tough, strong, independent, and stubborn.
The book quote has Rachel determined to not be seen as a cripple. “I wrote that because I consider it the bravest thing she ever said. She went through a terrible event, but she fought and conquered it. Catherine also had a tough life, growing up on the Hong Kong waterfronts. She learned from it to become stronger. These two women are more similar than different. They had rough teenage years that they had to overcome. I think they are more sisters than friends and will always go to bat for each other. I think Catherine is more like the older sister because she has a son, which makes a big difference.”
Johansen writes female characters that are something other than constant damsels in distress. They find a way to survive and have come out even stronger. This story shows how a character’s past and the decisions made influence the present and future, sometimes to the point of getting revenge by pursuing a vendetta.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Talon, Come Fly with Me in Books
Jun 5, 2019
I’m reviewing Talon, Come Fly With Me, by Gigi Sedlmayer. Here are my thoughts:
“Talon, Come Fly With Me” is a sweet book, for children, although I’m sure adults would love this, too. This is just the sort of book I would have loved to have read with my son when he was younger.
On the surface this is a story about a nine year old girl called Matica, living among the mountains of Peru with two condors she’s claimed as her own. In as much as you can claim two wild birds. But in fact it’s much more than that. The author, Gigi Sedlmayer, delves into more serious issues in a way which is suitable for children to read and understand. For example, she touches upon what it’s like to be a child with a disability, not fitting in, and feeling socially inadequate. She also covers subjects of which I sense are very close to her own heart; the protection of condors, habitat loss, and their possible extinction.
I totally felt for the condors, Tamo and Tima, when the poachers were coming to steal their egg, and there a few really tense scenes where the poachers are involved, which had me rooting for those birds to protect their young. Especially, after learning they only have one egg every two years. (If I’ve remembered that fact correctly).
But it’s not all doom and gloom. With some great laugh out loud moments, a happy ending and meaningful lessons learned, this book was a treasure of a find for me. To be honest, I wasn’t sure what to expect from a children’s book about condors, which seemed so far removed from my usual reads, but Gigi Sedlmayer is an award winning author, so I hoped it would be good. And it was. Even though I’m not a kid. ?
It was lovely to meet Talon, of whom this series of books is based around. Condors are strange looking creatures. To some these large birds look so ugly, but they’re actually quite beautiful in their own way. In fact, through this book I’ve learned so much more about them, they now have an additional fan. What a great way to introduce children (and adults) to these amazing birds! I love learning real facts in fictional books, especially about wildlife, and the author did this so well, without information dumping.
Overall: For young and the not so young, this book is a lovely introduction to not only condors and their habitat, but of living a totally different life from our own in the Peruvian mountains. (That is, if you’re not actually an Indian who can speak Arawakan, and reading this from your home in Peru! ). On top of that, it’s a positive book, which highlights how we should be more accepting of others, their cultures, and differences, whatever they may be. Whether you’re a monster of a bird, or child with a disability, things are not always as they, at first, may seem. If this sounds like your sort of read, don’t hesitate to buy it. You should love it!
“Talon, Come Fly With Me” is a sweet book, for children, although I’m sure adults would love this, too. This is just the sort of book I would have loved to have read with my son when he was younger.
On the surface this is a story about a nine year old girl called Matica, living among the mountains of Peru with two condors she’s claimed as her own. In as much as you can claim two wild birds. But in fact it’s much more than that. The author, Gigi Sedlmayer, delves into more serious issues in a way which is suitable for children to read and understand. For example, she touches upon what it’s like to be a child with a disability, not fitting in, and feeling socially inadequate. She also covers subjects of which I sense are very close to her own heart; the protection of condors, habitat loss, and their possible extinction.
I totally felt for the condors, Tamo and Tima, when the poachers were coming to steal their egg, and there a few really tense scenes where the poachers are involved, which had me rooting for those birds to protect their young. Especially, after learning they only have one egg every two years. (If I’ve remembered that fact correctly).
But it’s not all doom and gloom. With some great laugh out loud moments, a happy ending and meaningful lessons learned, this book was a treasure of a find for me. To be honest, I wasn’t sure what to expect from a children’s book about condors, which seemed so far removed from my usual reads, but Gigi Sedlmayer is an award winning author, so I hoped it would be good. And it was. Even though I’m not a kid. ?
It was lovely to meet Talon, of whom this series of books is based around. Condors are strange looking creatures. To some these large birds look so ugly, but they’re actually quite beautiful in their own way. In fact, through this book I’ve learned so much more about them, they now have an additional fan. What a great way to introduce children (and adults) to these amazing birds! I love learning real facts in fictional books, especially about wildlife, and the author did this so well, without information dumping.
Overall: For young and the not so young, this book is a lovely introduction to not only condors and their habitat, but of living a totally different life from our own in the Peruvian mountains. (That is, if you’re not actually an Indian who can speak Arawakan, and reading this from your home in Peru! ). On top of that, it’s a positive book, which highlights how we should be more accepting of others, their cultures, and differences, whatever they may be. Whether you’re a monster of a bird, or child with a disability, things are not always as they, at first, may seem. If this sounds like your sort of read, don’t hesitate to buy it. You should love it!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A Valentine's weekend wonder
It’s hard to believe that one of Marvel’s hottest properties – Deadpool, has taken this long to get to the silver screen. Of course, we can always cast our minds back to 2009’s disastrous X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But for goodness sake, let’s not.
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Victim of its marketing
It’s always refreshing to see a film released primarily for the adult market. We all loved The Hunger Games, but imagine what the series could’ve been like had the franchise been given a 15 or even an 18 certification.
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Sing (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Fun for all the family
Talking animated animals are big business over in Hollywood. After all, Disney’s Zootopia was one of only a handful of films to gross over $1billion last year. Its competitor, The Secret Life of Pets performed well but wasn’t critically successful.
Here, the company behind that second film, Illumination Entertainment, try to get the genre right with Sing. But are we looking at the next superstar of the animated genre?
Koala Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey) presides over a once-grand theatre that has recently fallen on hard times. An eternal optimist, he loves his work enormously and will do anything to preserve it. Facing the crumbling of his life’s ambition, he takes one final chance to restore his fading jewel to its former glory by producing a singing competition, with eternal glory facing the winner.
There’s an impressive roster of talent on offer in Sing, something that parents will no doubt enjoy slightly more than the offspring they no doubt have to bring with them. With Matthew McConaughey taking the lead role, Taron Egerton, Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson and Seth McFarlane to name a few all lend their voices. There’s even a role for Brit-favourite Jennifer Saunders as a grumpy old sheep, it’s not ground-breaking, but it’s immensely likeable stuff.
Illumination Entertainment has brought us the brilliant Despicable Me franchise as well as its ridiculously successful spin-off Minions, but they’ve been criticised heavily for relying too much on the funny yellow critters to cash their paycheques. Thankfully, bar the now infamous company logo, the tic-tac shaped creatures are nowhere to be found and Sing is a vastly entertaining movie, in spite of their absence.
Whilst it’s true that the animation lacks the depth or fluidity of offerings from Pixar, Disney, and Dreamworks, there is a certain charm to its simplistic colour palate that children will find endearing. The plot is woefully unoriginal but director Garth Jennings, in his first animated feature, utilises that well, cleverly referencing the many talent shows that feature on our television screens – including those we are sick of.
There are some moral lessons in here too. Tori Kelly’s stage-shy elephant Meena has a great story arc that sees her face her fears and embrace her talents, whilst Taron Egerton’s gorilla Johnny stands up to his criminal father and learns that a life of crime doesn’t always pay.
In fact, only Seth MacFarlane’s obnoxious mouse Mike fails to make an impact on the plot, with his berating of an asthmatic sheep in the cleverly produced opening sequence coming across a little crude in comparison to the rest of the script.
Overall, Sing is a great film to hold the kid’s attention as we approach the half-term holidays. It would be easy to criticise it for lacking an original story, but there’s more to offer here than a half-baked plot. It’s beautifully voiced and reasonably well animated. Illumination Entertainment may not have topped Zootopia, but this is their best offering outside of Despicable Me by a country mile.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/01/28/fun-for-all-the-family-sing-review/
Here, the company behind that second film, Illumination Entertainment, try to get the genre right with Sing. But are we looking at the next superstar of the animated genre?
Koala Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey) presides over a once-grand theatre that has recently fallen on hard times. An eternal optimist, he loves his work enormously and will do anything to preserve it. Facing the crumbling of his life’s ambition, he takes one final chance to restore his fading jewel to its former glory by producing a singing competition, with eternal glory facing the winner.
There’s an impressive roster of talent on offer in Sing, something that parents will no doubt enjoy slightly more than the offspring they no doubt have to bring with them. With Matthew McConaughey taking the lead role, Taron Egerton, Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson and Seth McFarlane to name a few all lend their voices. There’s even a role for Brit-favourite Jennifer Saunders as a grumpy old sheep, it’s not ground-breaking, but it’s immensely likeable stuff.
Illumination Entertainment has brought us the brilliant Despicable Me franchise as well as its ridiculously successful spin-off Minions, but they’ve been criticised heavily for relying too much on the funny yellow critters to cash their paycheques. Thankfully, bar the now infamous company logo, the tic-tac shaped creatures are nowhere to be found and Sing is a vastly entertaining movie, in spite of their absence.
Whilst it’s true that the animation lacks the depth or fluidity of offerings from Pixar, Disney, and Dreamworks, there is a certain charm to its simplistic colour palate that children will find endearing. The plot is woefully unoriginal but director Garth Jennings, in his first animated feature, utilises that well, cleverly referencing the many talent shows that feature on our television screens – including those we are sick of.
There are some moral lessons in here too. Tori Kelly’s stage-shy elephant Meena has a great story arc that sees her face her fears and embrace her talents, whilst Taron Egerton’s gorilla Johnny stands up to his criminal father and learns that a life of crime doesn’t always pay.
In fact, only Seth MacFarlane’s obnoxious mouse Mike fails to make an impact on the plot, with his berating of an asthmatic sheep in the cleverly produced opening sequence coming across a little crude in comparison to the rest of the script.
Overall, Sing is a great film to hold the kid’s attention as we approach the half-term holidays. It would be easy to criticise it for lacking an original story, but there’s more to offer here than a half-baked plot. It’s beautifully voiced and reasonably well animated. Illumination Entertainment may not have topped Zootopia, but this is their best offering outside of Despicable Me by a country mile.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/01/28/fun-for-all-the-family-sing-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Terminator Genisys (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Not a complete disaster
Sequels and reboots are making up the bulk of 2015’s cinematic offerings. With films added to franchises like Jurassic Park, Star Wars and James Bond, it was always going to be tough for others to make much of a dent.
It’s been six years since Christian Bale took over lead billing from Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator series in the critically panned Terminator Salvation. But director Alan Taylor (Thor: the Dark World), a newcomer to the sci-fi adventure series, resurrects the franchise with Terminator Genisys. But is it worth a watch?
Acting as a reboot and a sequel, the film follows the story of a young Kyle Reece (Jai Courtney), sent back in time by John Connor (Jason Clarke) to protect his mother Sarah, played by Game of Thrones’ Emilia Clarke. His aim is to stop the war before it even begins.
The duo are joined on their travels by the naturally charismatic Arnold Schwarzenegger who is one of the only highlights in a film full of soulless set-pieces, meaningless dialogue and a sickening sense of nostalgia.
Genisys constantly reminds you of the brilliance radiating from James Cameron’s first two films. Herein lies the problem, this sequel has none of the soul or charm of its predecessors with the homages coming across as insulting attempts to cash in on the series.
Even the iconic “I’ll be back” phrase is shoehorned into an awkward position where it doesn’t really make much sense.
And there we move onto the second issue. It makes hardly any sense at all. With continuity errors abound, Genisys relies on your knowledge of Terminator and Judgement Day being in tip-top shape, and after more than two decades it’s safe to say the majority of people will need a refresher course first.
The set pieces are, on the whole, glorious and despite being slightly overlong at 126 minutes, Genisys is a well-paced film without a boring moment to its name. It’s just a shame the plot doesn’t make more of an impact.
It feels like the characters are stuck in a video game, with a climactic action piece signalling the next level, moving on up until the obligatory big-boss fight that makes a further sequel seem incredibly likely.
Emilia Clarke is well-worth noting however. Despite being more used to being in the company of dragons rather than robots, she plays her character well and steps into Linda Hamilton’s shoes with ease. The casting is spot on here with Clarke having more than a whiff of Hamilton in her appearance.
The rest of the cast, bar Schwarzenegger fail to make an impression with Jai Courtney’s character proving particularly dull.
Overall, Terminator Genisys isn’t a complete disaster but comes close to being a write off. The action pieces are thrilling but a lack of soul, comprehension and individuality ensures it’ll end up being forgotten once 2015 is over.
With a sequel almost definitely on the cards, all fans of the franchise can hope for is a film worthy of James Cameron’s brilliant original – and this is not it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/05/not-a-complete-disaster-terminator-genisys-review/
It’s been six years since Christian Bale took over lead billing from Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator series in the critically panned Terminator Salvation. But director Alan Taylor (Thor: the Dark World), a newcomer to the sci-fi adventure series, resurrects the franchise with Terminator Genisys. But is it worth a watch?
Acting as a reboot and a sequel, the film follows the story of a young Kyle Reece (Jai Courtney), sent back in time by John Connor (Jason Clarke) to protect his mother Sarah, played by Game of Thrones’ Emilia Clarke. His aim is to stop the war before it even begins.
The duo are joined on their travels by the naturally charismatic Arnold Schwarzenegger who is one of the only highlights in a film full of soulless set-pieces, meaningless dialogue and a sickening sense of nostalgia.
Genisys constantly reminds you of the brilliance radiating from James Cameron’s first two films. Herein lies the problem, this sequel has none of the soul or charm of its predecessors with the homages coming across as insulting attempts to cash in on the series.
Even the iconic “I’ll be back” phrase is shoehorned into an awkward position where it doesn’t really make much sense.
And there we move onto the second issue. It makes hardly any sense at all. With continuity errors abound, Genisys relies on your knowledge of Terminator and Judgement Day being in tip-top shape, and after more than two decades it’s safe to say the majority of people will need a refresher course first.
The set pieces are, on the whole, glorious and despite being slightly overlong at 126 minutes, Genisys is a well-paced film without a boring moment to its name. It’s just a shame the plot doesn’t make more of an impact.
It feels like the characters are stuck in a video game, with a climactic action piece signalling the next level, moving on up until the obligatory big-boss fight that makes a further sequel seem incredibly likely.
Emilia Clarke is well-worth noting however. Despite being more used to being in the company of dragons rather than robots, she plays her character well and steps into Linda Hamilton’s shoes with ease. The casting is spot on here with Clarke having more than a whiff of Hamilton in her appearance.
The rest of the cast, bar Schwarzenegger fail to make an impression with Jai Courtney’s character proving particularly dull.
Overall, Terminator Genisys isn’t a complete disaster but comes close to being a write off. The action pieces are thrilling but a lack of soul, comprehension and individuality ensures it’ll end up being forgotten once 2015 is over.
With a sequel almost definitely on the cards, all fans of the franchise can hope for is a film worthy of James Cameron’s brilliant original – and this is not it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/05/not-a-complete-disaster-terminator-genisys-review/