Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Sep 3, 2018
Gemma Chan (1 more)
Constance Wu
OK. I don't do books, so I wouldn't have been aware of the best selling book that Crazy Rich Asians is based on. I don't usually do rom coms either, but that only tends to be the ones where they're the typical boy and girl hate each other and are thrown together until they love each other type movies. But, I do love a movie that's done well, regardless of genre. And as Crazy Rich Asians continues to receive much hype and success in the US (I'm in the UK), I thought I'd better go and see what all the fuss is about. So, as part of date night with the wife, we decided to go check it out!
Now, for this movie I think the trailer nailed it in terms of what you see is what you're going to get. And in my opinion, I'd say how you feel after seeing the trailer for this movie is a pretty good gauge for how you'll feel about the movie as a whole. Personally, I watched the trailer and I didn't think it looked that great. The story looked mildly interesting, there were some funny characters and some potentially great performances, but there was nothing in the trailer that grabbed me and stuck with me. And that's exactly how I felt about the movie after I'd seen it.
The story centres around Rachel and Nick, both living in New York and having been dating for a while. Nick is due to head home to Singapore for his best friends wedding and has asked Rachel to join him. The opening scene of the movie, featuring Nick as a young child, gives us some insight into how much wealth and power his family possess. We also see how an innocent photo of Nick and Rachel talking in a bar quickly hits Singapore social media, setting thousands of tongues wagging and giving us a pretty good idea just how big a deal Nick and his family are over there. And how much of a talking point it is that Nick is dating a girl raised in America, rather than Asia. It's only when they land in Singapore that Rachel realises the full extent of what she's let herself in for.
Nick is part of a big, rich family, with each family member having their own set of problems and insecurities to deal with. I actually had trouble keeping track of who's who for a while, but one thing this movie does do is allow sufficient time for all family members to be explored and for some particularly strong performances to blossom. Nicks mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh) is the one that Rachel is out to impress though, and although she remains polite at all times, it's clear that she doesn't approve. I thought this was going to be a variation of the boy and girl hate each other at first theme that I spoke about earlier, and while it kind of is in a way, it doesn't make for such a fun, easy ride like standard rom coms do.
For me, those strong performances I spoke about came from Gemma Chan as a millionaire cousin with an insecure cheating husband, and Constance Wu as Rachel. Michelle Yeoh is somebody we're probably a bit more familiar with, and she was also outstanding as Nicks mother Eleanor. There are plenty of characters providing comedy relief and bringing the 'crazy' to the films title. Most notably Awkwafina as Rachel’s best friend and Ken Jeong, who seemed slightly subdued for once.
Overall I didn't not enjoy this movie, but then I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hoped I would either. I laughed, I was entertained, but I felt the movie dragged and stumbled at times, and didn't really elevate itself above just a standard rom com for me.
Now, for this movie I think the trailer nailed it in terms of what you see is what you're going to get. And in my opinion, I'd say how you feel after seeing the trailer for this movie is a pretty good gauge for how you'll feel about the movie as a whole. Personally, I watched the trailer and I didn't think it looked that great. The story looked mildly interesting, there were some funny characters and some potentially great performances, but there was nothing in the trailer that grabbed me and stuck with me. And that's exactly how I felt about the movie after I'd seen it.
The story centres around Rachel and Nick, both living in New York and having been dating for a while. Nick is due to head home to Singapore for his best friends wedding and has asked Rachel to join him. The opening scene of the movie, featuring Nick as a young child, gives us some insight into how much wealth and power his family possess. We also see how an innocent photo of Nick and Rachel talking in a bar quickly hits Singapore social media, setting thousands of tongues wagging and giving us a pretty good idea just how big a deal Nick and his family are over there. And how much of a talking point it is that Nick is dating a girl raised in America, rather than Asia. It's only when they land in Singapore that Rachel realises the full extent of what she's let herself in for.
Nick is part of a big, rich family, with each family member having their own set of problems and insecurities to deal with. I actually had trouble keeping track of who's who for a while, but one thing this movie does do is allow sufficient time for all family members to be explored and for some particularly strong performances to blossom. Nicks mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh) is the one that Rachel is out to impress though, and although she remains polite at all times, it's clear that she doesn't approve. I thought this was going to be a variation of the boy and girl hate each other at first theme that I spoke about earlier, and while it kind of is in a way, it doesn't make for such a fun, easy ride like standard rom coms do.
For me, those strong performances I spoke about came from Gemma Chan as a millionaire cousin with an insecure cheating husband, and Constance Wu as Rachel. Michelle Yeoh is somebody we're probably a bit more familiar with, and she was also outstanding as Nicks mother Eleanor. There are plenty of characters providing comedy relief and bringing the 'crazy' to the films title. Most notably Awkwafina as Rachel’s best friend and Ken Jeong, who seemed slightly subdued for once.
Overall I didn't not enjoy this movie, but then I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hoped I would either. I laughed, I was entertained, but I felt the movie dragged and stumbled at times, and didn't really elevate itself above just a standard rom com for me.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aftermath (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aftermath starts by showing us a man struggling to walk through an abandoned landscape. We then flash back to one month earlier where we learn about an ongoing war between America and Israel. We meet or protagonist Hunter (Thomason) as he listens to the ongoing war before nuclear explosion hit leading him to rescue a young family. The group also meet another survivor in the road but find a place to stay underground in a farmhouse with another small group of survivors. Hunter explains they will need to spend at least a month underground while the fall out of the nuclear attack settles. We follow the group through the month as tension rise over time.
When I saw this and the title I was actually looking to settle down and watch a horror like film, but what we got was so much more. First off there is no horror involved, it is all tension building character development. We see the group over 30 days and how their situation gets worse as each day goes by, with only the radio to update them. We get to see how the radiation slowly changes and infects them while others try to get in. it plays on a range of emotions and comes off very bleak. This is a great story of the struggle to survive after a nuclear attack from the point of view of the innocent victims. (7/10)
Actor Review
C.J. Thomason: Hunter doctor and survivalist who leads the group of survivors as they try to make it through the attack in a farm basement. He tries to treat everyone who has issues but even with his skills he can’t save everyone from the situation. C.J. gives a good performance as a reluctant leader. (7/10)
hunter
Monica Keena: Elizabeth stranger picked up on the side of the road, she stays with the group and sometimes looks out for younger members by her calm nature. Monica gives a solid performance but sometimes struggles in the action scenes. (6/10)
monica
Edward Furlong: Brad over protective redneck who doesn’t want to let the group in and is always against the decision to let them in. he is a hot head but as the time goes by he wants to look after the group as much as the rest. Edward gives a good performance and does a good job with the only character that shows full emotion. (7/10)
ed
Support Cast: Aftermath’s supporting cast is mainly extra people in the basement who go through the struggles but also includes the people outside who are too far gone to let in.
Director Review: Peter Engert – Peter does a good job directing Aftermath creating genuine tension throughout. (8/10)
Action: Aftermath only has a few action scenes and they are quick, but each comes off desperate like the situation the people are in. (7/10)
Thriller: Aftermath really pulls you in as you want to know what happens to the group and feel for them when things start to get worse. (8/10)
Settings: Aftermath uses its isolation setting that the group creates for themselves to survive really well, as it keeps us unaware of what is going on outside. (9/10)
Suggestion: Aftermath is worth watching, but I do feel like the casual fan might not enjoy this, it really will appeal to those who enjoy a solid drama about survival. (Try It)
Best Part: The bleakness that surrounds the story.
Worst Part: Aftermath can come off feeling a little bit slow.
Believability: Aftermath tackles a potential real problem the world could face. (7/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Overall: A Great Unwatched Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/24/aftermath-2012/
When I saw this and the title I was actually looking to settle down and watch a horror like film, but what we got was so much more. First off there is no horror involved, it is all tension building character development. We see the group over 30 days and how their situation gets worse as each day goes by, with only the radio to update them. We get to see how the radiation slowly changes and infects them while others try to get in. it plays on a range of emotions and comes off very bleak. This is a great story of the struggle to survive after a nuclear attack from the point of view of the innocent victims. (7/10)
Actor Review
C.J. Thomason: Hunter doctor and survivalist who leads the group of survivors as they try to make it through the attack in a farm basement. He tries to treat everyone who has issues but even with his skills he can’t save everyone from the situation. C.J. gives a good performance as a reluctant leader. (7/10)
hunter
Monica Keena: Elizabeth stranger picked up on the side of the road, she stays with the group and sometimes looks out for younger members by her calm nature. Monica gives a solid performance but sometimes struggles in the action scenes. (6/10)
monica
Edward Furlong: Brad over protective redneck who doesn’t want to let the group in and is always against the decision to let them in. he is a hot head but as the time goes by he wants to look after the group as much as the rest. Edward gives a good performance and does a good job with the only character that shows full emotion. (7/10)
ed
Support Cast: Aftermath’s supporting cast is mainly extra people in the basement who go through the struggles but also includes the people outside who are too far gone to let in.
Director Review: Peter Engert – Peter does a good job directing Aftermath creating genuine tension throughout. (8/10)
Action: Aftermath only has a few action scenes and they are quick, but each comes off desperate like the situation the people are in. (7/10)
Thriller: Aftermath really pulls you in as you want to know what happens to the group and feel for them when things start to get worse. (8/10)
Settings: Aftermath uses its isolation setting that the group creates for themselves to survive really well, as it keeps us unaware of what is going on outside. (9/10)
Suggestion: Aftermath is worth watching, but I do feel like the casual fan might not enjoy this, it really will appeal to those who enjoy a solid drama about survival. (Try It)
Best Part: The bleakness that surrounds the story.
Worst Part: Aftermath can come off feeling a little bit slow.
Believability: Aftermath tackles a potential real problem the world could face. (7/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Overall: A Great Unwatched Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/24/aftermath-2012/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Robot in the Garden in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This ebook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What would you do if you found a robot in your garden? That is exactly what, as the title suggests, 34-year-old Ben has to answer on making this discovery early one September morning. Set in the near future where many people have androids in their houses to do the chores they do not wish to do, finding a robot is not a completely unsettling event. What is unusual, however, is that this particular robot is the opposite of the modern, shiny models: he appears to be a mishmash of Japanese fine art and something you would find on a scrap heap.
As Ben discovers, the robot, named Tang is broken and is in need of urgent care and repair. Ben becomes obsessed with trying to pry information out of the robot as to where he came from and to whom he belongs to. Bringing Tang into the house is the last straw for his wife, Amy, who after letting him know all his faults – unemployment, never achieved anything – walks out on him. Now alone, with no one else to worry about, Ben is determined to locate Tang’s creator and save the robot’s life.
What continues is a wild goose chase across America and over to Asia as the strange pairing – human and robot – follows hints and clues that could help them reach their destination. Along the way Ben gets to know Tang and learns to love him in the same way a father loves a child. No matter what mischief Tang gets himself into, Ben is always there to fix the situation. The only thing he cannot fix is Tang’s internal parts, and time is running out.
Initially the story was about a man who wanted to prove he could achieve something to show his sister and his, now, ex-wife that they were wrong about him. However later on in the novel Ben realizes he is changing for himself, not for anyone else, and the person – or robot – that has helped him to achieve this is Tang. On the other hand it is also a humorous tale that explores a character that is unable to connect to the world around him. Tang is like a human toddler who needs constant care and attention, and is fascinated by everything around him. With Ben’s love and attention he proves to the world that he is much more than a rusty metal box.
<i>A Robot in the Garden</i> is a gem of a novel that is guaranteed to make the reader laugh. It is also touching and emotionally engaging, with both heartwarming and heart wrenching moments. Deborah Install has created an accurate representation of a character that has no understanding of the happenings in the world around it, basing many hilarious instances on those of her young son.
Whilst reading this book I could not help but compare it to the film <i>Short Circuit</i> (1986) in which a robot is electrocuted and gains human intelligence. I kept picturing the storyline of <i>A Robot in the Garden</i> in my head and thinking up ways it could be portrayed on screen. Whether there are plans to make it into a film I have no idea, but I am sure it would make prize-winning picture.
Do not be put off by its science fiction classification; <i>A Robot in the Garden</i> is no <i>War of the Worlds</i> or <i>Doctor Who</i> type of story. Instead it is a brilliant piece if fiction suitable for all adults. Those with children will laugh at the similarities between Tang and their offspring, whereas those without will sympathise with Ben’s struggles to keep the robot under control. All in all a great novel.
What would you do if you found a robot in your garden? That is exactly what, as the title suggests, 34-year-old Ben has to answer on making this discovery early one September morning. Set in the near future where many people have androids in their houses to do the chores they do not wish to do, finding a robot is not a completely unsettling event. What is unusual, however, is that this particular robot is the opposite of the modern, shiny models: he appears to be a mishmash of Japanese fine art and something you would find on a scrap heap.
As Ben discovers, the robot, named Tang is broken and is in need of urgent care and repair. Ben becomes obsessed with trying to pry information out of the robot as to where he came from and to whom he belongs to. Bringing Tang into the house is the last straw for his wife, Amy, who after letting him know all his faults – unemployment, never achieved anything – walks out on him. Now alone, with no one else to worry about, Ben is determined to locate Tang’s creator and save the robot’s life.
What continues is a wild goose chase across America and over to Asia as the strange pairing – human and robot – follows hints and clues that could help them reach their destination. Along the way Ben gets to know Tang and learns to love him in the same way a father loves a child. No matter what mischief Tang gets himself into, Ben is always there to fix the situation. The only thing he cannot fix is Tang’s internal parts, and time is running out.
Initially the story was about a man who wanted to prove he could achieve something to show his sister and his, now, ex-wife that they were wrong about him. However later on in the novel Ben realizes he is changing for himself, not for anyone else, and the person – or robot – that has helped him to achieve this is Tang. On the other hand it is also a humorous tale that explores a character that is unable to connect to the world around him. Tang is like a human toddler who needs constant care and attention, and is fascinated by everything around him. With Ben’s love and attention he proves to the world that he is much more than a rusty metal box.
<i>A Robot in the Garden</i> is a gem of a novel that is guaranteed to make the reader laugh. It is also touching and emotionally engaging, with both heartwarming and heart wrenching moments. Deborah Install has created an accurate representation of a character that has no understanding of the happenings in the world around it, basing many hilarious instances on those of her young son.
Whilst reading this book I could not help but compare it to the film <i>Short Circuit</i> (1986) in which a robot is electrocuted and gains human intelligence. I kept picturing the storyline of <i>A Robot in the Garden</i> in my head and thinking up ways it could be portrayed on screen. Whether there are plans to make it into a film I have no idea, but I am sure it would make prize-winning picture.
Do not be put off by its science fiction classification; <i>A Robot in the Garden</i> is no <i>War of the Worlds</i> or <i>Doctor Who</i> type of story. Instead it is a brilliant piece if fiction suitable for all adults. Those with children will laugh at the similarities between Tang and their offspring, whereas those without will sympathise with Ben’s struggles to keep the robot under control. All in all a great novel.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Leatherheads (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The movie opens with John Krasinski’s character, “Carter Rutherford”, playing college-level football for Princeton at a bleacher-groaning, over-packed game chock full of screaming patrons and die-hard fans. The kid is a golden-child, a war hero, and the nation’s most promising young athlete in the good old year of 1925. Carter is dynamic, attractive, and exactly what the country needs at a time of World War I. It is little wonder his face plasters billboards across town, that his name is uttered with awe and adoration. In truth, how could you not? The kid had, after all, single-handedly forced a contingent of German soldiers to surrender without even shooting one bullet.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Bloodrush (The Scarlet Star Trilogy #1) in Books
Nov 8, 2019
It is hard to describe this book purely because it appears to try to do too much.
It is set in an alternate universe where much is familiar but some things are very different.
It is a western, mostly set in an frontier town in Wyoming with the usual cast of restless townspeople, lone prospectors and ruthless land owners.
It is a fantasy involving faeries and magick
Yet in Galley's capable hands these elements are moulded into a seamless and thrilling story. All the different aspects fit together neatly and consistently producing a terrific platform for the characters and plot.
The main character is 13 year old Tonmerion Hark (known as Merion), son of the Prime Lord (think Prime Minister) of an alternate version of Victorian Britain. When his father is murdered by assailants unknown he is sent to his last remaining relative - an aunt living in Wyoming. Travelling with him is is best friend, a faerie called Rhin who is a fugitive from the rest of the Fae. Desperate to get back to London to find his father's killer and rescue his inheritance, Merion is instead drawn into conflict and underhand dealings in the small town of Fell Falls where is aunt is the undertaker.
The alternate universe is particularly striking. Very nearly everything is familiar but with important differences. The biggest of these is clearly that creatures such as the Fae exist (even if few people have ever seen one) but other changes include the natives of America, the Shohari, not being quite human and a lot of clever differences in London that really make it clear what kind of world Merion inhabits. The magick is also well thought out with a lot of thought and imagination given to its mechanics and its implications.
Galley's writing is a joy. It is clear and concise yet conveys the scene to the reader with impressive ease. The hot sun and gritty sand of the desert feel very real indeed. The characters are very well described and a great deal of care has been taken to express them. These are not cardboard cliches, which would have been easy. Merion is the hero but at heart is still a 13 year old boy, a boy who is impetuous and complains how life is unfair. All through the book there is a subtle undercurrent of wry humour.
What this whole book reminded me of - both in the writing and in the almost but not quite like our world setting - was a slightly darker Terry Pratchett. That is not an exaggeration, This book really is up there with the very best Discworld books in terms of story and inventiveness. It is darker in tone than anything Pratchett would write and not quite as laugh out loud funny in places but it is damn close.
The story itself unfolds at a fast pace - which is good because there is a lot to get through with several plots running intertwined through the narrative and sparking off each other as they twist and turn through every reveal. The final showdown is suitably climactic and the prose as well as the magick crackles off the page in a breathless rush towards the final chapter.
I do like to balance my reviews with maybe some small point that counts against the book but I really can't think of one for Bloodrush. It simply is a magnificent piece of work. You may not have known you wanted a alternate reality fantasy western but once you have read this you will wonder where the next one is coming from.
Very very highly recommended and the 5 star rating was easy to give.
Rated: Strong language so not for the youngest of young adults
It is set in an alternate universe where much is familiar but some things are very different.
It is a western, mostly set in an frontier town in Wyoming with the usual cast of restless townspeople, lone prospectors and ruthless land owners.
It is a fantasy involving faeries and magick
Yet in Galley's capable hands these elements are moulded into a seamless and thrilling story. All the different aspects fit together neatly and consistently producing a terrific platform for the characters and plot.
The main character is 13 year old Tonmerion Hark (known as Merion), son of the Prime Lord (think Prime Minister) of an alternate version of Victorian Britain. When his father is murdered by assailants unknown he is sent to his last remaining relative - an aunt living in Wyoming. Travelling with him is is best friend, a faerie called Rhin who is a fugitive from the rest of the Fae. Desperate to get back to London to find his father's killer and rescue his inheritance, Merion is instead drawn into conflict and underhand dealings in the small town of Fell Falls where is aunt is the undertaker.
The alternate universe is particularly striking. Very nearly everything is familiar but with important differences. The biggest of these is clearly that creatures such as the Fae exist (even if few people have ever seen one) but other changes include the natives of America, the Shohari, not being quite human and a lot of clever differences in London that really make it clear what kind of world Merion inhabits. The magick is also well thought out with a lot of thought and imagination given to its mechanics and its implications.
Galley's writing is a joy. It is clear and concise yet conveys the scene to the reader with impressive ease. The hot sun and gritty sand of the desert feel very real indeed. The characters are very well described and a great deal of care has been taken to express them. These are not cardboard cliches, which would have been easy. Merion is the hero but at heart is still a 13 year old boy, a boy who is impetuous and complains how life is unfair. All through the book there is a subtle undercurrent of wry humour.
What this whole book reminded me of - both in the writing and in the almost but not quite like our world setting - was a slightly darker Terry Pratchett. That is not an exaggeration, This book really is up there with the very best Discworld books in terms of story and inventiveness. It is darker in tone than anything Pratchett would write and not quite as laugh out loud funny in places but it is damn close.
The story itself unfolds at a fast pace - which is good because there is a lot to get through with several plots running intertwined through the narrative and sparking off each other as they twist and turn through every reveal. The final showdown is suitably climactic and the prose as well as the magick crackles off the page in a breathless rush towards the final chapter.
I do like to balance my reviews with maybe some small point that counts against the book but I really can't think of one for Bloodrush. It simply is a magnificent piece of work. You may not have known you wanted a alternate reality fantasy western but once you have read this you will wonder where the next one is coming from.
Very very highly recommended and the 5 star rating was easy to give.
Rated: Strong language so not for the youngest of young adults
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Antebellum (2020) in Movies
Apr 2, 2021
Incredibly dull and predictable
Antebellum is a 2020 thriller film from debut writer directors Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz, the trailer for which implied it was a mind bending, time travelling horror story set during the times of slavery in America. However Antebellum never manages to live up to what it promised, instead turning out to be a rather dull and predictable affair.
Antebellum opens on an unknown plantation somewhere in Louisiana, run by confederate soldiers. Janelle Monae stars as Eden, a slave we first see being beaten and branded by the confederate leader general known only as “Him” (Eric Lange). Running the plantation alongside “Him” is sadistic confederate officer Captain Jasper (Jack Huston) and his equally unpleasant wife Elizabeth (Jena Malone). Eden and her fellow slaves, including newcomer Julia (Kiersey Clemons), suffer numerous acts of brutality and oppressions at the hands of confederate soldiers, all the while trying to plan their escape amid the feeling that this plantation isn’t quite what it seems.
Then one night lying in bed after being raped by the general, Eden hears the ringing of a mobile phone and suddenly wakes up in an entirely different era, where she is now know as renowned sociologist Dr Veronica Henley. Veronica has a husband (Marque Richardson) and young daughter and is currently finishing off a book tour, with some help from her best friends Dawn (Gabourey Sidibe) and Sarah (Lily Cowles). Strange things soon start to happen, and a night out with her friends doesn’t quite the way Veronica had expected.
Antebellum’s biggest flaw, and unfortunately a rather pivotal one, is the story itself. I feel like there is meant to be an important message here, but I feel like it’s lost in the stereotypes and predictability. I’m trying to avoid spoilers, but this film is very reminiscent of one by M. Night Shyamalan and has a very similar storyline. I’d actually go so far as saying that his film was at least more interesting. Antebellum seems to have shied away from showing any real intrigue or thrill or horror at all, and other than switching from Eden to Veronica part way in, nothing of any real substance happens until the last 30 minutes of the film. There was even a lack of hints or subtleties pointing to the later plot twist throughout, and this may at least have helped make it a little less dull.
It’s a shame, as this film did have potential. It looks stunning and has been very well made, from the set design to the costumes, it all looks authentic and the score is suitably tense and dramatic too. The opening scene on the plantation alongside the score made for a very intriguing opener, although sadly this was spoilt some by the use questionable slow motion. Performance wise Gabourey Sidibe brings some much needed humour and fun as Veronica’s man hungry best friend, and Janelle Monae is captivating as both Eden and Veronica. This film is lucky Monae is such a talent, as she’s the only reason this was watchable to the very end. It’s just a shame Jena Malone’s Elizabeth is far too over the top to be a believable villain.
Antebellum is obviously trying to make an important statement about slavery and racism packaged into an unusual thriller/horror, but unlike similar films like Jordan Peele’s Get Out, it doesn’t manage to pull it off and instead flounders with a dull and predictable storyline that most could figure out well before the final act. It’s also severely lacking in any real intrigue or horror, and aside from some good performances, there’s nothing memorable about this at all.
Antebellum opens on an unknown plantation somewhere in Louisiana, run by confederate soldiers. Janelle Monae stars as Eden, a slave we first see being beaten and branded by the confederate leader general known only as “Him” (Eric Lange). Running the plantation alongside “Him” is sadistic confederate officer Captain Jasper (Jack Huston) and his equally unpleasant wife Elizabeth (Jena Malone). Eden and her fellow slaves, including newcomer Julia (Kiersey Clemons), suffer numerous acts of brutality and oppressions at the hands of confederate soldiers, all the while trying to plan their escape amid the feeling that this plantation isn’t quite what it seems.
Then one night lying in bed after being raped by the general, Eden hears the ringing of a mobile phone and suddenly wakes up in an entirely different era, where she is now know as renowned sociologist Dr Veronica Henley. Veronica has a husband (Marque Richardson) and young daughter and is currently finishing off a book tour, with some help from her best friends Dawn (Gabourey Sidibe) and Sarah (Lily Cowles). Strange things soon start to happen, and a night out with her friends doesn’t quite the way Veronica had expected.
Antebellum’s biggest flaw, and unfortunately a rather pivotal one, is the story itself. I feel like there is meant to be an important message here, but I feel like it’s lost in the stereotypes and predictability. I’m trying to avoid spoilers, but this film is very reminiscent of one by M. Night Shyamalan and has a very similar storyline. I’d actually go so far as saying that his film was at least more interesting. Antebellum seems to have shied away from showing any real intrigue or thrill or horror at all, and other than switching from Eden to Veronica part way in, nothing of any real substance happens until the last 30 minutes of the film. There was even a lack of hints or subtleties pointing to the later plot twist throughout, and this may at least have helped make it a little less dull.
It’s a shame, as this film did have potential. It looks stunning and has been very well made, from the set design to the costumes, it all looks authentic and the score is suitably tense and dramatic too. The opening scene on the plantation alongside the score made for a very intriguing opener, although sadly this was spoilt some by the use questionable slow motion. Performance wise Gabourey Sidibe brings some much needed humour and fun as Veronica’s man hungry best friend, and Janelle Monae is captivating as both Eden and Veronica. This film is lucky Monae is such a talent, as she’s the only reason this was watchable to the very end. It’s just a shame Jena Malone’s Elizabeth is far too over the top to be a believable villain.
Antebellum is obviously trying to make an important statement about slavery and racism packaged into an unusual thriller/horror, but unlike similar films like Jordan Peele’s Get Out, it doesn’t manage to pull it off and instead flounders with a dull and predictable storyline that most could figure out well before the final act. It’s also severely lacking in any real intrigue or horror, and aside from some good performances, there’s nothing memorable about this at all.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Fruitvale Station (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2020
Here is another movie that was put up for consideration for my upcoming book 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential Films. It didn’t quite make the final cut, but is part of the long list of honourable mentions – movies that are easy to like and recommend, but aren’t quite of the very highest quality in their respective genres.
Borderline superstar Michael B. Jordan owes his career to Ryan Coogler, which began in earnest in 2013 with the strong effort of true story Fruitvale Station, highlighting the life and final moments of Oscar Grant, who was one of a tragically long list of innocent young men murdered by the police in modern America. Since then he has gone on to star as the eponymous Creed and as the popular Erik Killmonger in Black Panther, making him more or less the most famous black actor under forty currently at work.
I mention him first because having seen the other two films first, I have to admit I wasn’t quite getting it. I mean he is fine in both movies, but nothing world beating. Then you go back to his acheivement in the earlier film and begin to see what he might be capable of given the right scripts. He pretty much embodies Oscar Grant to a degree you believe you are watching a documentary. Which is the major plus point of Ryan Coogler’s direction also.
By pulling us in to the family life of Oscar, as if we were a fly on the wall, we become connected to their story as if we were part of that inner circle, making the inevitable horror of events hit home all the harder. We watch mundane events and conversations take place with a shadow of foreboding that never crosses over into foreshadowing or signposting. The balance is very nicely done.
Melonie Diaz, as girlfriend Sophina, and especially the ever wonderful Octavia Spencer, as loving but grounded mother Wanda, offer solid support, but the camera clings to Jordan by choice, asking us to place ourselves in his shoes and feel the empathy first hand. It is a sober journey, almost totally devoid of directorial flair, which is both a strength and a weakness, ultimately.
With such an awful, heart-rending subject, it can be difficult to remove yourself into a dispassionate view of a film artistically, as the message overpowers your emotions. The best thing that can be said in this case is that the drama never crosses the line of sentimentality or overkill; it merely presents events as they were and asks you to draw your own conclusions. Having said that, I can’t over-praise it simply because the subject needs to be seen, heard, discussed and acted upon with total immediacy in the real world.
This film is already seven years old, and the issues are more pertinent than ever before, as the BLM movement rages all over the world, but especially in the USA, where the culpability and violence of police officers must be addressed and resolved before the loss of one more innocent life. The message delivered by the film is clear and unambiguous – it has to be heeded. And in that sense it is an indespensible film of great power, I would advise you to see.
And with that, it seems a moot point to criticise it, because there isn’t anything negative to say that would say anything useful. I would just say again that it doesn’t quite make the grade of the best 200 films since the Millennium. Whereas, BlacKkKlansman does. An unfair comparison in many ways, but an obvious one in others. See both. Think about them, do what you can, and help make hatred and prejudice a sad fact of history.
Decinemal Rating: 70
Borderline superstar Michael B. Jordan owes his career to Ryan Coogler, which began in earnest in 2013 with the strong effort of true story Fruitvale Station, highlighting the life and final moments of Oscar Grant, who was one of a tragically long list of innocent young men murdered by the police in modern America. Since then he has gone on to star as the eponymous Creed and as the popular Erik Killmonger in Black Panther, making him more or less the most famous black actor under forty currently at work.
I mention him first because having seen the other two films first, I have to admit I wasn’t quite getting it. I mean he is fine in both movies, but nothing world beating. Then you go back to his acheivement in the earlier film and begin to see what he might be capable of given the right scripts. He pretty much embodies Oscar Grant to a degree you believe you are watching a documentary. Which is the major plus point of Ryan Coogler’s direction also.
By pulling us in to the family life of Oscar, as if we were a fly on the wall, we become connected to their story as if we were part of that inner circle, making the inevitable horror of events hit home all the harder. We watch mundane events and conversations take place with a shadow of foreboding that never crosses over into foreshadowing or signposting. The balance is very nicely done.
Melonie Diaz, as girlfriend Sophina, and especially the ever wonderful Octavia Spencer, as loving but grounded mother Wanda, offer solid support, but the camera clings to Jordan by choice, asking us to place ourselves in his shoes and feel the empathy first hand. It is a sober journey, almost totally devoid of directorial flair, which is both a strength and a weakness, ultimately.
With such an awful, heart-rending subject, it can be difficult to remove yourself into a dispassionate view of a film artistically, as the message overpowers your emotions. The best thing that can be said in this case is that the drama never crosses the line of sentimentality or overkill; it merely presents events as they were and asks you to draw your own conclusions. Having said that, I can’t over-praise it simply because the subject needs to be seen, heard, discussed and acted upon with total immediacy in the real world.
This film is already seven years old, and the issues are more pertinent than ever before, as the BLM movement rages all over the world, but especially in the USA, where the culpability and violence of police officers must be addressed and resolved before the loss of one more innocent life. The message delivered by the film is clear and unambiguous – it has to be heeded. And in that sense it is an indespensible film of great power, I would advise you to see.
And with that, it seems a moot point to criticise it, because there isn’t anything negative to say that would say anything useful. I would just say again that it doesn’t quite make the grade of the best 200 films since the Millennium. Whereas, BlacKkKlansman does. An unfair comparison in many ways, but an obvious one in others. See both. Think about them, do what you can, and help make hatred and prejudice a sad fact of history.
Decinemal Rating: 70
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Feb 19, 2018
Inwardly focused SuperHero film mostly works.
THE BLACK PANTHER is the first entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that relies - predominantly - on characters (and actors) of color to carry it. Of the main characters, only 2 are Caucasian, the rest of the cast (including almost all of the supporting cast and the extras) - AND the Director are people of color. This has, rightfully so, created a "buzz" about the significance of this. It is a watershed moment for SuperHero films (much like last year's WONDER WOMAN was a watershed for a female led SuperHero film). But the question remains - is it a good film?
The answer: Good Enough.
Diving deeper into the character/hero T'Challa/Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) who was first introduced in CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. In this film, we learn more about the backstory of this man/character as well as the world in which he lives and the burdens he bears. It also, interestingly enough, pretty much ignores the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe for much of it's 2 hour 14 minute timeline. It mostly concerns itself with interior issues in the hidden kingdom of Wakanda and I think this tactic is a welcome relief from the giant, CGI-laden, characters-heavy Marvel films of recent memory.
Director/Writer Ryan Coogler (CREED/FRUITVALE STATION) decides to focus the attention of this film inward, rather than outward and we are rewarded with a rich, Shakespearean family drama that works because of it's simplicity.
Much of the effectiveness is due to the charismatic cast that has been drawn to this picture because of the significance of it as well as the richness of the characters they inhabit. Bozeman is regal and strong in the title role - no hint of the suffering, "I don't want this" SuperHero angst so often seen in these types of film. Academy Award winner Lupito Nyong'o joins in just as strong and independently as Nakia a "Spy" and erstwhile romantic foil for T'Challa - though Coogler is wise to avoid the "will they/won't they" cliche as well as eliminates, entirely, the "damsel in distress" subplot that would have been so tempting.
Helping these two out are a veritable "who's who" of actors of color - Angela Bassett, Forrest Whitaker, current Best Actor nominee Daniel Kaluuya and Sterling K. Brown - all turn out for fun (albeit brief) turns where each one of them gets a chance to show what they can do. Special notice should be made to Danai Gurira (TV's kick-ass Michonne in THE WALKING DEAD) as Okoye - T'Challa's chief general and bodyguard who must choose duty over honor (or does she) and, especially, Letitia Wright as T'Challa's younger, wise-cracking sister - who also happens to be the "Q" of this film. She jumped off the screen and shone brightly (but not so bright as to wash things out) in every scene she was in.
And...of course...there is Coogler favorite Michael B. Jordan (he's been in all of Coogler's major motion picture) as the villain of the piece - Erik Killmonger (the name says it all). Jordan does a nice job of bringing 3 dimensions to a character that was written a little too 2 dimension-ally, if you ask me. This character could have just been an "angry young man" cliche, but with Jordan, he becomes something much, much more.
This being a Marvel SuperHero film, the Special Effects are terrific, showing a highly secretive, highly technolized Wakanda that is hidden beneath the surface.
Is it a perfect film? Well...no. This is, in essence, a "family drama" with some hi-tech action scenes and the obligatory "two armies fighting" finale, and while the acting is good enough to hold interest throughout, I would have liked to have seen a little more action thrown in.
But...ignoring the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was a good move - as was casting such strong, believable and likeable film actors.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The answer: Good Enough.
Diving deeper into the character/hero T'Challa/Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) who was first introduced in CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. In this film, we learn more about the backstory of this man/character as well as the world in which he lives and the burdens he bears. It also, interestingly enough, pretty much ignores the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe for much of it's 2 hour 14 minute timeline. It mostly concerns itself with interior issues in the hidden kingdom of Wakanda and I think this tactic is a welcome relief from the giant, CGI-laden, characters-heavy Marvel films of recent memory.
Director/Writer Ryan Coogler (CREED/FRUITVALE STATION) decides to focus the attention of this film inward, rather than outward and we are rewarded with a rich, Shakespearean family drama that works because of it's simplicity.
Much of the effectiveness is due to the charismatic cast that has been drawn to this picture because of the significance of it as well as the richness of the characters they inhabit. Bozeman is regal and strong in the title role - no hint of the suffering, "I don't want this" SuperHero angst so often seen in these types of film. Academy Award winner Lupito Nyong'o joins in just as strong and independently as Nakia a "Spy" and erstwhile romantic foil for T'Challa - though Coogler is wise to avoid the "will they/won't they" cliche as well as eliminates, entirely, the "damsel in distress" subplot that would have been so tempting.
Helping these two out are a veritable "who's who" of actors of color - Angela Bassett, Forrest Whitaker, current Best Actor nominee Daniel Kaluuya and Sterling K. Brown - all turn out for fun (albeit brief) turns where each one of them gets a chance to show what they can do. Special notice should be made to Danai Gurira (TV's kick-ass Michonne in THE WALKING DEAD) as Okoye - T'Challa's chief general and bodyguard who must choose duty over honor (or does she) and, especially, Letitia Wright as T'Challa's younger, wise-cracking sister - who also happens to be the "Q" of this film. She jumped off the screen and shone brightly (but not so bright as to wash things out) in every scene she was in.
And...of course...there is Coogler favorite Michael B. Jordan (he's been in all of Coogler's major motion picture) as the villain of the piece - Erik Killmonger (the name says it all). Jordan does a nice job of bringing 3 dimensions to a character that was written a little too 2 dimension-ally, if you ask me. This character could have just been an "angry young man" cliche, but with Jordan, he becomes something much, much more.
This being a Marvel SuperHero film, the Special Effects are terrific, showing a highly secretive, highly technolized Wakanda that is hidden beneath the surface.
Is it a perfect film? Well...no. This is, in essence, a "family drama" with some hi-tech action scenes and the obligatory "two armies fighting" finale, and while the acting is good enough to hold interest throughout, I would have liked to have seen a little more action thrown in.
But...ignoring the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was a good move - as was casting such strong, believable and likeable film actors.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Hazel (1853 KP) rated He Walks Among Us: Encounters with Christ in a Broken World in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<b>Synopsis</b>
Richard Stearns is the president of World Vision United States who, along with his wife Reneé, regularly visits the poorer countries of our world to see the ways the charity is helping to change people's lives. <i>He Walks Among Us</i> is a compilation of short thoughts and observations (two-to-three pages, including photographs) they have both had while conducting their work. As they alternate the writing, we are given opinions and experiences that we may be able to relate to our own. As Richard is the president of the organisation, he can give an insight into the way World Vision works, however, he can also express his opinions as a father, grandfather and believer in Christ. Reneé is also a World Vision worker, but due to her nature, gives a more maternal impression of the scenes she witnesses.
The individuals written about in this book come from all over the world. Most are located in Africa, but there are also similar stories in Asia, South and North America, and even Eastern Europe. The terrors these people have faced are shocking (AIDs, war, sexual abuse, natural disasters etc), but each family has been aided in some way by World Vision and their donors.
The purpose of <i>He Walks Among Us</i> is not to promote World Vision, but to encourage us to let God and Jesus into our lives. Richard and Reneé assume their readers are Christians, however, they realise that being a Christian does not equate to fully accepting God's plans. The victims of war, rape, and poverty mentioned have also been touched by Jesus. Many did not know him before World Vision came into their lives, but they have now been transformed through the power of his love - although their situation may not have significantly improved.
The actual stories used to illustrate the work of World Vision are only brief mentions, providing the bare bones of the situations. What Richard and Reneé have focused on is linking these lives, their lives and our lives to passages from the Bible. Either taken literally or metaphorically, the pair manage to relate everything to the actions and fates of a number of key Biblical characters. This emphasises that Our Lord is walking among us, giving life, peace, hope and steadfast faith.
<b>Ideas</b>
Giving someone new hope or purpose in their life can be related to Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Whether people are literally dying, or on the edge of hopelessness and despair, improving their situation can turn their lives around.
The donors and workers at World Vision are like the Good Samaritan in Jesus' parable. We do not know these people, know their religion or circumstances, yet we send money and aid. To do nothing would make us the Priest or Levite in the story.
David was only a young boy when he had to face Goliath, yet, against all odds, he defeated him. The children mentioned in this book are similar to David. They each have their metaphorical Goliath's: poverty, illness, loss of parents, war, hunger etc, but with God working through us, these can be overcome.
<b>Noteworthy Bible Verses</b>
Each chapter of the book begins with a Bible verse, and often more are included within the text. Here are a few that really relate to the work of World Vision and the ways in which we can involve ourselves:
Philippians 4:12-13
Luke 21:3-4
Luke 6:20-21
Psalm 23:4
<b>Statistics</b>
23 million people in sub-Sahara Africa are suffering from HIV.
In Soviet-controlled Georgia, churches were banned. Some villages are only just seeing their first church in over 400 years.
20 thousand children under the age of 5 die every day.
Every 4 seconds a child under 5 dies.
Over 2 billion people in the world are living on $2 or less a day.
1 billion people have no access to clean drinking water.
41% of the population in Niger have no clean water.
<b>Citations</b>
Helen Keller: "So much has been given to me, I have no time to ponder over that which is denied."
Oswald Chambers: "The great hindrance in spiritual life is that we will look for big things to do. Jesus took a towel ... and began to wash the disciples' feet."
Mother Theresa: "I am a pencil in the hand of a writing God who is sending a love letter to the world."
C.S. Lewis: "Humility is not thinking less of yourself but thinking of yourself less."
<b>Other Mentions</b>
Hymn - Frances R. Havergal, <i>Take my Life and let it be.</i>
Film - <i>Pushing the Elephant</i>
Richard Stearns is the president of World Vision United States who, along with his wife Reneé, regularly visits the poorer countries of our world to see the ways the charity is helping to change people's lives. <i>He Walks Among Us</i> is a compilation of short thoughts and observations (two-to-three pages, including photographs) they have both had while conducting their work. As they alternate the writing, we are given opinions and experiences that we may be able to relate to our own. As Richard is the president of the organisation, he can give an insight into the way World Vision works, however, he can also express his opinions as a father, grandfather and believer in Christ. Reneé is also a World Vision worker, but due to her nature, gives a more maternal impression of the scenes she witnesses.
The individuals written about in this book come from all over the world. Most are located in Africa, but there are also similar stories in Asia, South and North America, and even Eastern Europe. The terrors these people have faced are shocking (AIDs, war, sexual abuse, natural disasters etc), but each family has been aided in some way by World Vision and their donors.
The purpose of <i>He Walks Among Us</i> is not to promote World Vision, but to encourage us to let God and Jesus into our lives. Richard and Reneé assume their readers are Christians, however, they realise that being a Christian does not equate to fully accepting God's plans. The victims of war, rape, and poverty mentioned have also been touched by Jesus. Many did not know him before World Vision came into their lives, but they have now been transformed through the power of his love - although their situation may not have significantly improved.
The actual stories used to illustrate the work of World Vision are only brief mentions, providing the bare bones of the situations. What Richard and Reneé have focused on is linking these lives, their lives and our lives to passages from the Bible. Either taken literally or metaphorically, the pair manage to relate everything to the actions and fates of a number of key Biblical characters. This emphasises that Our Lord is walking among us, giving life, peace, hope and steadfast faith.
<b>Ideas</b>
Giving someone new hope or purpose in their life can be related to Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Whether people are literally dying, or on the edge of hopelessness and despair, improving their situation can turn their lives around.
The donors and workers at World Vision are like the Good Samaritan in Jesus' parable. We do not know these people, know their religion or circumstances, yet we send money and aid. To do nothing would make us the Priest or Levite in the story.
David was only a young boy when he had to face Goliath, yet, against all odds, he defeated him. The children mentioned in this book are similar to David. They each have their metaphorical Goliath's: poverty, illness, loss of parents, war, hunger etc, but with God working through us, these can be overcome.
<b>Noteworthy Bible Verses</b>
Each chapter of the book begins with a Bible verse, and often more are included within the text. Here are a few that really relate to the work of World Vision and the ways in which we can involve ourselves:
Philippians 4:12-13
Luke 21:3-4
Luke 6:20-21
Psalm 23:4
<b>Statistics</b>
23 million people in sub-Sahara Africa are suffering from HIV.
In Soviet-controlled Georgia, churches were banned. Some villages are only just seeing their first church in over 400 years.
20 thousand children under the age of 5 die every day.
Every 4 seconds a child under 5 dies.
Over 2 billion people in the world are living on $2 or less a day.
1 billion people have no access to clean drinking water.
41% of the population in Niger have no clean water.
<b>Citations</b>
Helen Keller: "So much has been given to me, I have no time to ponder over that which is denied."
Oswald Chambers: "The great hindrance in spiritual life is that we will look for big things to do. Jesus took a towel ... and began to wash the disciples' feet."
Mother Theresa: "I am a pencil in the hand of a writing God who is sending a love letter to the world."
C.S. Lewis: "Humility is not thinking less of yourself but thinking of yourself less."
<b>Other Mentions</b>
Hymn - Frances R. Havergal, <i>Take my Life and let it be.</i>
Film - <i>Pushing the Elephant</i>