Search
Search results
Take Me Apart by Kelela
5.8
Rate It
Album Watch
With great anticipation, Kelela's debut album emerges as an epic portrait of an artist spanning the...
dance electronic R&B pop
Louise (64 KP) rated The Problem with Forever in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I have really wanted to read something by Jennifer L Armentrout for a while, one being the lux series that I have heard a lot of people in the blogosphere rave about. I wasn’t expecting to like this book as much as I did! Your probably think I say that for all the books I read, but I try not to set expectations too high. This book was addictive, I managed to read 70% of it in one day and stayed up until the early hours of the morning just so I could finish it, even though I knew I was going to be sooo tired for work the next day.
Mallory Dodge hasn’t had the easiest start in life, she grew up in Foster homes and some that were pretty awful, so much that she becomes withdrawn and the only way to keep herself safe and from drawing attention to herself is to remain as quiet as a ‘Mouse’. Until one horrific incident she manages to escape the horrific abuse that she was subjected to and adopted by Carl and Rosa two doctors that treated her but she will forever be scarred mentally and physically. Mallory is returning to a state school after being home schooled for the previous 4 years and somewhat apprehensive. Being silent has held Mallory back and she needs to start getting on with her life and one is to start socializing with people her own age and building her confidence, otherwise she fears she will be this way forever.
All is going well on her first day, well she hasn’t spoken to anyone but at least she is at school which is a big tick in the box. One of her classes is speech, one of the hardest lessons for her to overcome. She spots a boy who feels familiar to her, but it couldn’t be, could it? When the boy seats himself next to her in speech she is shocked, the boy is Rider Stark…. her best friend from when she was in the foster home, her saviour and protector, one that experienced all those awful things with her, he knows her like no-one else. With emotions and feelings about Rider all over the place, her foster parents not happy with his sudden appearance and what it will mean, Mallory has to break the silence to save everything.
OK! I need to start off with the cover, how beautiful is this book and the colours? This would instantly draw me in and buy it, you can just tell its contemporary. This book a massive 480 pages and there wasn’t a dull moment. This is such an emotional story, there is swoon worthy romance with a hot guy, there are sad times and times when my heart was racing because I was scared for Mallory and Rider, what would happen to them both.
Mallory’s character was amazing with so much development, she was such a different girl at the finish and I was overcome with pride as of how well she had managed and grew. She is a likeable character always trying to please everyone, she is shy and timid making you really feel for her.
Rider, he is Mallory’s protector and he always will be. It’s what he knows best. He skips class to make sure Mallory is not alone at lunch, he doesn’t do much when he does attend his lessons but he is an artist (not to him). He is so caring and like perfect boyfriend material it was impossible not to swoon.
Some could say the romance was a bit insta-lovey but for me it wasn’t. They hadn’t seen each other in 4 years and they were reconnecting wanting to get to know each other again and find out how life has been since they last saw each other. But their friendship was totally different from 4 years ago, and they both knew it. There was an attraction that wasn’t there before.
Throughout the story Mallory has flashbacks to when she was younger and the abuse(physically and verbally) that herself and Rider were subjected to and what lead to the incident. It shows how Rider cared for Mallory and how there pasts had shaped the people they had become.
I really liked most of the side characters in this book, there was Ainsley which was Mallory’s best friend outside of school. Hector and Jayden were cheeky chappies who Rider lived with. Paige and Carl I didn’t really warm to but I think that’s mainly because they were getting in the way of Mallory’s happiness .
This story is addictive, beautiful and heart warming, I enjoyed every page and would definitely recommend it.
I rated this 4 out of stars
I received a copy of this from Netgalley and the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Mallory Dodge hasn’t had the easiest start in life, she grew up in Foster homes and some that were pretty awful, so much that she becomes withdrawn and the only way to keep herself safe and from drawing attention to herself is to remain as quiet as a ‘Mouse’. Until one horrific incident she manages to escape the horrific abuse that she was subjected to and adopted by Carl and Rosa two doctors that treated her but she will forever be scarred mentally and physically. Mallory is returning to a state school after being home schooled for the previous 4 years and somewhat apprehensive. Being silent has held Mallory back and she needs to start getting on with her life and one is to start socializing with people her own age and building her confidence, otherwise she fears she will be this way forever.
All is going well on her first day, well she hasn’t spoken to anyone but at least she is at school which is a big tick in the box. One of her classes is speech, one of the hardest lessons for her to overcome. She spots a boy who feels familiar to her, but it couldn’t be, could it? When the boy seats himself next to her in speech she is shocked, the boy is Rider Stark…. her best friend from when she was in the foster home, her saviour and protector, one that experienced all those awful things with her, he knows her like no-one else. With emotions and feelings about Rider all over the place, her foster parents not happy with his sudden appearance and what it will mean, Mallory has to break the silence to save everything.
OK! I need to start off with the cover, how beautiful is this book and the colours? This would instantly draw me in and buy it, you can just tell its contemporary. This book a massive 480 pages and there wasn’t a dull moment. This is such an emotional story, there is swoon worthy romance with a hot guy, there are sad times and times when my heart was racing because I was scared for Mallory and Rider, what would happen to them both.
Mallory’s character was amazing with so much development, she was such a different girl at the finish and I was overcome with pride as of how well she had managed and grew. She is a likeable character always trying to please everyone, she is shy and timid making you really feel for her.
Rider, he is Mallory’s protector and he always will be. It’s what he knows best. He skips class to make sure Mallory is not alone at lunch, he doesn’t do much when he does attend his lessons but he is an artist (not to him). He is so caring and like perfect boyfriend material it was impossible not to swoon.
Some could say the romance was a bit insta-lovey but for me it wasn’t. They hadn’t seen each other in 4 years and they were reconnecting wanting to get to know each other again and find out how life has been since they last saw each other. But their friendship was totally different from 4 years ago, and they both knew it. There was an attraction that wasn’t there before.
Throughout the story Mallory has flashbacks to when she was younger and the abuse(physically and verbally) that herself and Rider were subjected to and what lead to the incident. It shows how Rider cared for Mallory and how there pasts had shaped the people they had become.
I really liked most of the side characters in this book, there was Ainsley which was Mallory’s best friend outside of school. Hector and Jayden were cheeky chappies who Rider lived with. Paige and Carl I didn’t really warm to but I think that’s mainly because they were getting in the way of Mallory’s happiness .
This story is addictive, beautiful and heart warming, I enjoyed every page and would definitely recommend it.
I rated this 4 out of stars
I received a copy of this from Netgalley and the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I’ll. Be. Right. Here.”
The worst thing about this movie is its title. The second worst thing about this movie is its trailer. Both will either a) put people off seeing it (it succeeded in that with my wife for example) or b) make people conclude it is a ‘nice holiday film to take the kids to’, which is also an horrendous mistake!
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Good Boys (2019) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Repetitive. (1 more)
Too similar to other R-rated teen comedies.
Thor Casts Anal Bead Nunchucks
“Bean Bag Boys for life!” In Good Boys, that’s the motto for three 12-year-old best friends that are finding the sixth grade way more profound and coercing than the fifth grade or any other grade before it ever was. Max (Jacob Tremblay) is at the age where girls aren’t so gross and are actually quite arousing, Thor (Brady Noon) is giving up on who he is and what he loves in a bold attempt to try to fit in with kids who he thinks are cool, and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) mostly just loves Magic: The Gathering, treating women with respect, and being honest.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The House by the Cemetery in Books
Jan 31, 2019 (Updated Feb 2, 2019)
I have a love-hate relationship with The House by the Cemetery by John Everson, and it’s really tearing me apart. I absolutely enjoyed the story itself, but there’s a few issues, one of which is a huge red flag, that I simply can’t allow to go unspoken–and if other reviews are any clue, I’m not the only one that’s immensely bothered by it.
The story involves a witch that died in 1963, a haunted house, a haunted house attraction, and a lot of characters (too many to keep track of without a notebook, actually). Hired to repair the haunted house so that guests can safely walk through it, Mike Kostner spends much of his time drinking beer and talking with the girls, Katie and Emery. At the same time, Jeanie’s been hired on as a makeup artist for the upcoming attraction and drags her boyfriend, Bong, into it. Then there’s Jillie and Ted, paranormal investigators. And then there are three other groups of people to form more members of the cast, which I found to be extremely overwhelming.
At this point in my review, I usually talk about characters and their development, what I like about them, what I don’t, etc. In this case, I can’t really do that. The only character I managed to forge any sort of emotional connection with was Jeanie, and it’s mainly sympathetic. As for the rest of the roles played, I’m largely disappointed. Why? Because there’s a severe lack of sensitivity in this novel–which has been mentioned in several other reviews. There are four characters whose sole defining characteristic is either their race or their weight. There’s no depth given beyond that to them as an individual. The remarks dealing with weight are largely shaming and those dealing with race are stereotypical. And here’s where I’m going to take a moment to discuss the character Bong, which I feel is the most blatant insult to another race’s customs that I’ve seen in a long time.
Bong’s full name is Bong-soon Mon. Phonetically, that sounds a lot like “bong soon man.” It’s not overly obvious if you’re not familiar with Korean names, and Bong-soon is an actual name used in the drama Strong Woman Do Bong Soon. However, in this case, Everson shortens Bong-soon, which is actually the character’s name (whether it’s his first or last, I’m not sure), to Bong. Thus he makes it more of a laughing matter (really, it’s not funny), whether it’s intentional or unintentional. Usually I’m not sensitive to these types of material, but in this book the way it comes across is really bothersome and, like several other readers, I agree with the idea that this book desperately needs an edit for sensitivity. Please bear in mind that I read an arc of this book and so I’m not sure if any of these issues were addressed in the final publication.
EDIT: After speaking with the author, he explained to me that the reason he shortened the name as he did comes from personal experience with someone that had the same name, and what they went by. Everson also assured me it was not his intent to fat shame those characters. I really appreciate that he reached out to me, and feel it's important that my misconception be corrected, but not hidden.
Plotwise, I adored this book. I can’t go too much into detail without sharing spoilers, but I can say this: the Everson does have a talent for creating beautifully grisly, albeit somewhat repetitive, scenes. The bloodbath that takes place near the end of the book is a glorious gore-fest that I felt the rest of the story worked up to quite well, even if it crawled earlier on while Mike was working on the house. As for the setting, it’s well written. I liked the idea of a house next to a cemetery, and its easy to infer its age without being told: it’s too close to a turnpike to have been put there before the turnpike was built. I was, however, confused by the juxtaposition of a heavily wooded house and cemetery in close proximity to a city or town, as in my experience turnpikes usually don’t have exits between major locales. At least, not very many present-day ones do, as most of them have been converted to, or created as, a controlled-access highway, where intersecting roads tend to cross over or under so that they do not impede traffic. That said, it strikes me as weird that a single house and cemetery would have an exit from a turnpike.
So I decided to google cemeteries and turnpikes, and what did I find? Bachelor’s Grove Cemetery is an actual haunted locale found in the suburbs of Chicago. And yes, it actually is that close to a turnpike! If you like to watch Ghost Adventures, the cemetery was featured in a 2012 episode. Also, the cemetery is extremely old. Even better? Many of the ghost stories referenced in the book are actual tales surrounding the cemetery. It’s actually pretty fascinating and I wouldn’t even have known about it were it not for Everson’s book.
Overall, I did enjoy reading this book. I loved the homage to horror movies of all types, including lesser known genres. I absolutely adored the way in which some of the characters were manipulated, too. Hence why I stated early in this review that I have a love-hate relationship with it. Because of the lack of sensitivity though, and the way I was made to feel as a reader because of it (I’m overweight, after all), I can’t give it more than three skulls.
I’d like to thank the publisher and NetGalley for providing me with a free copy of this book for review.
The story involves a witch that died in 1963, a haunted house, a haunted house attraction, and a lot of characters (too many to keep track of without a notebook, actually). Hired to repair the haunted house so that guests can safely walk through it, Mike Kostner spends much of his time drinking beer and talking with the girls, Katie and Emery. At the same time, Jeanie’s been hired on as a makeup artist for the upcoming attraction and drags her boyfriend, Bong, into it. Then there’s Jillie and Ted, paranormal investigators. And then there are three other groups of people to form more members of the cast, which I found to be extremely overwhelming.
At this point in my review, I usually talk about characters and their development, what I like about them, what I don’t, etc. In this case, I can’t really do that. The only character I managed to forge any sort of emotional connection with was Jeanie, and it’s mainly sympathetic. As for the rest of the roles played, I’m largely disappointed. Why? Because there’s a severe lack of sensitivity in this novel–which has been mentioned in several other reviews. There are four characters whose sole defining characteristic is either their race or their weight. There’s no depth given beyond that to them as an individual. The remarks dealing with weight are largely shaming and those dealing with race are stereotypical. And here’s where I’m going to take a moment to discuss the character Bong, which I feel is the most blatant insult to another race’s customs that I’ve seen in a long time.
Bong’s full name is Bong-soon Mon. Phonetically, that sounds a lot like “bong soon man.” It’s not overly obvious if you’re not familiar with Korean names, and Bong-soon is an actual name used in the drama Strong Woman Do Bong Soon. However, in this case, Everson shortens Bong-soon, which is actually the character’s name (whether it’s his first or last, I’m not sure), to Bong. Thus he makes it more of a laughing matter (really, it’s not funny), whether it’s intentional or unintentional. Usually I’m not sensitive to these types of material, but in this book the way it comes across is really bothersome and, like several other readers, I agree with the idea that this book desperately needs an edit for sensitivity. Please bear in mind that I read an arc of this book and so I’m not sure if any of these issues were addressed in the final publication.
EDIT: After speaking with the author, he explained to me that the reason he shortened the name as he did comes from personal experience with someone that had the same name, and what they went by. Everson also assured me it was not his intent to fat shame those characters. I really appreciate that he reached out to me, and feel it's important that my misconception be corrected, but not hidden.
Plotwise, I adored this book. I can’t go too much into detail without sharing spoilers, but I can say this: the Everson does have a talent for creating beautifully grisly, albeit somewhat repetitive, scenes. The bloodbath that takes place near the end of the book is a glorious gore-fest that I felt the rest of the story worked up to quite well, even if it crawled earlier on while Mike was working on the house. As for the setting, it’s well written. I liked the idea of a house next to a cemetery, and its easy to infer its age without being told: it’s too close to a turnpike to have been put there before the turnpike was built. I was, however, confused by the juxtaposition of a heavily wooded house and cemetery in close proximity to a city or town, as in my experience turnpikes usually don’t have exits between major locales. At least, not very many present-day ones do, as most of them have been converted to, or created as, a controlled-access highway, where intersecting roads tend to cross over or under so that they do not impede traffic. That said, it strikes me as weird that a single house and cemetery would have an exit from a turnpike.
So I decided to google cemeteries and turnpikes, and what did I find? Bachelor’s Grove Cemetery is an actual haunted locale found in the suburbs of Chicago. And yes, it actually is that close to a turnpike! If you like to watch Ghost Adventures, the cemetery was featured in a 2012 episode. Also, the cemetery is extremely old. Even better? Many of the ghost stories referenced in the book are actual tales surrounding the cemetery. It’s actually pretty fascinating and I wouldn’t even have known about it were it not for Everson’s book.
Overall, I did enjoy reading this book. I loved the homage to horror movies of all types, including lesser known genres. I absolutely adored the way in which some of the characters were manipulated, too. Hence why I stated early in this review that I have a love-hate relationship with it. Because of the lack of sensitivity though, and the way I was made to feel as a reader because of it (I’m overweight, after all), I can’t give it more than three skulls.
I’d like to thank the publisher and NetGalley for providing me with a free copy of this book for review.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Notes from Ghost Town in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review will be found on my blog (<a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>) around the end of June).
I had been wanting to read this book since forever. I was thrilled when I found out that my local library had Notes From Ghost Town. I really liked this book.
Olivia is a 16 year old girl who has just realized that she's fallen in love with her best friend, Stern. On the day they share their first kiss, Olivia goes colorblind without knowing why. Soon after, Stern gets murdered. People are saying it was Olivia's mother as she was found with his body and because she's Schizophrenic. When Stern's ghost shows up telling Olivia to solve his murder because he doesn't believe it was her mother, Olivia must decide if she should help or if she's going crazy like her mother. Whatever she decides, she only has 9 days...
I like the title a lot. To me, it sounds kinda spooky which I like and which the book is not. I don't really understand why that title was picked since there isn't really any notes from Ghost Town unless they are musical.
The cover is alright. The girl is supposed to be the main character, Olivia. I guess she's hugging herself because Stern is gone, and she just thinks she's losing it completely. I would've had her against a back drop of Ghost Town and possibly with a ghostly Stern, but then again, I don't design covers.
I loved the world building, and the way in which Stern exists in the living world is your typical unfinished business thing. However, the world was written beautifully, and I felt as if I was a person existing in that world. Everything about this book felt real. The only thing that made the world building a little off was the fact that it's mentioned in the book that Stern's body was found all bloated and such because he'd been in the water for awhile. Yet, later in the book, it's said that he wasn't in the water for very long. Which one is it? I believe it's the latter, but the fact that both were written annoyed me a bit. Oh, and one other thing. Olivia mentions how much of an idiot Austin is, yet she hooks up with him and starts falling for him after he seems to be nice to her one time. In the real world, I seriously doubt this would happen. Jock boys that are mean to "weird" girls don't suddenly go sweet on them all of a sudden. I don't know. To me, it just didn't make sense.
The pacing starts out a bit slow, and I was worried that I had spent all my energy wanting this book for nothing. However, after a few chapters, the pacing picks up and stays that way throughout the book. In fact, I read most of this book in a day with the exception of about 60 pages. My husband wanted me to come to bed or else I would've finished it that night. Chapters flow into chapters and sentences into sentences. The pacing was brilliant after a slow start.
I enjoyed the plot even though it's been done before. Girl finally realizes she's in love with her best friend. Best friend dies right as something is getting started. Ghost haunts person due to unfinished business. However, the way the plot was written was fantastic. I felt it was a bit predictable, but I still enjoyed reading the book nonetheless. I didn't feel that there were any plot twists, but as I said, it's still an enjoyable read.
I loved the characters! I felt bad for Olivia becoming color blind since she was an up and coming artist. I loved how much she loved Stern yet she knew she had to keep on living (don't worry, that's not a spoiler). The only thing that annoyed me was how trusting she was during her investigation of who killed Stern. Also, I felt like she was just a tad bit naive because I felt it had become painfully obvious who is was. Perhaps she just wanted to see the good in everyone. I also enjoyed reading about Stern. I just wish I could've got a bit of back story on him so I would've been able to really feel for him. He dies within the first few chapters, so I never really got a chance to connect with him. While I loved reading about him, I just didn't feel for him. I absolutely loved Raina! I loved how much she wanted to help Olivia even though Olivia kept pushing her away. As for Austin, I didn't really know what to think of him. Olivia says he's mean (although she used other words for him), but throughout the book, he seemed really sweet.
The dialogue flowed freely and smoothly. Character interactions never once felt forced, and I felt that everyone spoke and acted appropriately for their age group. There is a lot of swearing in this book though, but I don't feel like it was put in just for the sake of having it in the book. The swearing felt natural, and fit right in with what the characters were going through. And let's be honest, most people would be hard pressed to find a teenager that didn't swear.
Overall, Notes From Ghost Town was a interesting and intriguing read. I loved the way Ellison incorporates a romantic ghost story in with a murder mystery. This makes for a fantastic read!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who are after an intriguing story that has a lot of different elements to read about.
I had been wanting to read this book since forever. I was thrilled when I found out that my local library had Notes From Ghost Town. I really liked this book.
Olivia is a 16 year old girl who has just realized that she's fallen in love with her best friend, Stern. On the day they share their first kiss, Olivia goes colorblind without knowing why. Soon after, Stern gets murdered. People are saying it was Olivia's mother as she was found with his body and because she's Schizophrenic. When Stern's ghost shows up telling Olivia to solve his murder because he doesn't believe it was her mother, Olivia must decide if she should help or if she's going crazy like her mother. Whatever she decides, she only has 9 days...
I like the title a lot. To me, it sounds kinda spooky which I like and which the book is not. I don't really understand why that title was picked since there isn't really any notes from Ghost Town unless they are musical.
The cover is alright. The girl is supposed to be the main character, Olivia. I guess she's hugging herself because Stern is gone, and she just thinks she's losing it completely. I would've had her against a back drop of Ghost Town and possibly with a ghostly Stern, but then again, I don't design covers.
I loved the world building, and the way in which Stern exists in the living world is your typical unfinished business thing. However, the world was written beautifully, and I felt as if I was a person existing in that world. Everything about this book felt real. The only thing that made the world building a little off was the fact that it's mentioned in the book that Stern's body was found all bloated and such because he'd been in the water for awhile. Yet, later in the book, it's said that he wasn't in the water for very long. Which one is it? I believe it's the latter, but the fact that both were written annoyed me a bit. Oh, and one other thing. Olivia mentions how much of an idiot Austin is, yet she hooks up with him and starts falling for him after he seems to be nice to her one time. In the real world, I seriously doubt this would happen. Jock boys that are mean to "weird" girls don't suddenly go sweet on them all of a sudden. I don't know. To me, it just didn't make sense.
The pacing starts out a bit slow, and I was worried that I had spent all my energy wanting this book for nothing. However, after a few chapters, the pacing picks up and stays that way throughout the book. In fact, I read most of this book in a day with the exception of about 60 pages. My husband wanted me to come to bed or else I would've finished it that night. Chapters flow into chapters and sentences into sentences. The pacing was brilliant after a slow start.
I enjoyed the plot even though it's been done before. Girl finally realizes she's in love with her best friend. Best friend dies right as something is getting started. Ghost haunts person due to unfinished business. However, the way the plot was written was fantastic. I felt it was a bit predictable, but I still enjoyed reading the book nonetheless. I didn't feel that there were any plot twists, but as I said, it's still an enjoyable read.
I loved the characters! I felt bad for Olivia becoming color blind since she was an up and coming artist. I loved how much she loved Stern yet she knew she had to keep on living (don't worry, that's not a spoiler). The only thing that annoyed me was how trusting she was during her investigation of who killed Stern. Also, I felt like she was just a tad bit naive because I felt it had become painfully obvious who is was. Perhaps she just wanted to see the good in everyone. I also enjoyed reading about Stern. I just wish I could've got a bit of back story on him so I would've been able to really feel for him. He dies within the first few chapters, so I never really got a chance to connect with him. While I loved reading about him, I just didn't feel for him. I absolutely loved Raina! I loved how much she wanted to help Olivia even though Olivia kept pushing her away. As for Austin, I didn't really know what to think of him. Olivia says he's mean (although she used other words for him), but throughout the book, he seemed really sweet.
The dialogue flowed freely and smoothly. Character interactions never once felt forced, and I felt that everyone spoke and acted appropriately for their age group. There is a lot of swearing in this book though, but I don't feel like it was put in just for the sake of having it in the book. The swearing felt natural, and fit right in with what the characters were going through. And let's be honest, most people would be hard pressed to find a teenager that didn't swear.
Overall, Notes From Ghost Town was a interesting and intriguing read. I loved the way Ellison incorporates a romantic ghost story in with a murder mystery. This makes for a fantastic read!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who are after an intriguing story that has a lot of different elements to read about.
Natalia (73 KP) rated Detroit: Become Human in Video Games
Dec 17, 2018
Story (4 more)
Characters
Art direction
Soundtrack
Controls
More Than Just a Video Game
I'll admit that hearing the initial premise of Detroit, it seemed to me cliche: a future in which technology has advanced to the point that androids exist, and how these androids themselves gain sentience. This, sprinkled in with messages of how we must improve how we treat the planet, and how we need to have a more consistent moral compass. All this I had expected from the game, but it ended up being so much more than that.
While the messages weaved into the game may not be ones people wanted or enjoyed, it can't be denied that the high-risk choices and the way we see glimpses into a wider world around these certainly engage any player. All of your choices seem high stake. Choices you make are timed, and there's no telling if they will have a completely unexpected outcome in the long-run of the story, and even if they don't, at the moment they feel like the most important choices you will ever make. Sure, some choices end up being, ultimately, pointless, but that seems to be a way that reflects life - you will make choices that seem incredibly important, but in the end, have no major result.
The game also follows three separate storylines - all of which do cross at some point within the game - and each has its charms. The most known story is the one following Connor, an android working in the DPD, but the other two focus on characters of seemingly varying importance: Kara, an android in charge of taking care of her owns daughter Alice, and Markus, an android who is charged with helping an elderly man live his day-to-day life as an artist. Within the game, however, these characters hold a similar kind of importance, perhaps due to the fact you play from their perspectives, or perhaps because you will personally gain an attachment to each characters bonds, motivations and lives as androids in a pivotal point in time for this fictional universe.
It's virtually impossible for me to review this game without mentioning the artistic efforts that went into it. Primarily, I mean the art direction and soundtrack. I'm a fan of 2D Indie games as much as the next person, just as I am a fan of the stylized graphics of the Borderlands universe and the art styles of visual novels, but something about how Detroit teeters on the edge of the uncanny valley in the best way possible speaks to how it's trying to reflect the real world. The depth of field in the game is fantastic, and small details are given their deserved attention to make a player feel as though they are watching a real-world story going on in front of them as they play. The music is certainly something that never fails for me in video games (looking at the Sonic games for influencing my love for video game music) but it completely excels in Detroit. Each story has its own collection of songs and a theme - musical loops that repeat throughout the majority of the songs in their sections to boot - and this truly helps with the experience. The way the music helps create an atmosphere, and how it fits almost perfectly into the actions going on, moves you. I don't know how else I can say this, really. Tempo changes, intensity and volume all come together to immerse you into what is happening on screen and have yet to jar me at all from my experience.
I've already mentioned the effect of the music on your mood, but what links well into this is the representation in the game - literally and symbolically. Literally, you see a diverse cast of characters that, despite most of them being androids, provide more proportional race-representation than actual films. Symbolically though, there is a much deeper idea of the past, present and future shown in the game. Perhaps this is me digging a whole lot further than necessary. I wouldn't be surprised. To avoid making this reviews very much filled with spoilers I'll have to talk in a vaguely cryptic way. Throughout Kara's story, there is a sense of being attached to the past, and this is amplified by the tracks that pair with the gameplay, truly making me cry no matter how many times I've seen a similar scene play out before me in a previous run of the game. This same link is shown with Connor and Markus, who link into the present and the past respectively. Unless I want to give away major plot points, I'll have to end my exploration of that little theory there, but if you are planning on playing through, or perhaps doing it again, it may be a good idea to look out for these themes. When you keep them in mind, they seem to pop up all over.
I know plenty of people have a problem with the pacing of the game, which can be quite understandable. Some scenes are long, some bursts of action seem unnecessary and stick around for a while longer than you may want them to, but this doesn't put as much of a damper on playing as it would seem. Pacing is an issue plenty of games have, and it seems perfectly fine to me in Detroit.
This is certainly turning into a much longer review than I had expected to give. I think to wrap this all up I can say that I have an overwhelmingly positive view of this game. Certainly, if you have enough interest in the game to be looking at reviews, this game is for you. I would recommend this for anyone looking for a unique gaming experience.
While the messages weaved into the game may not be ones people wanted or enjoyed, it can't be denied that the high-risk choices and the way we see glimpses into a wider world around these certainly engage any player. All of your choices seem high stake. Choices you make are timed, and there's no telling if they will have a completely unexpected outcome in the long-run of the story, and even if they don't, at the moment they feel like the most important choices you will ever make. Sure, some choices end up being, ultimately, pointless, but that seems to be a way that reflects life - you will make choices that seem incredibly important, but in the end, have no major result.
The game also follows three separate storylines - all of which do cross at some point within the game - and each has its charms. The most known story is the one following Connor, an android working in the DPD, but the other two focus on characters of seemingly varying importance: Kara, an android in charge of taking care of her owns daughter Alice, and Markus, an android who is charged with helping an elderly man live his day-to-day life as an artist. Within the game, however, these characters hold a similar kind of importance, perhaps due to the fact you play from their perspectives, or perhaps because you will personally gain an attachment to each characters bonds, motivations and lives as androids in a pivotal point in time for this fictional universe.
It's virtually impossible for me to review this game without mentioning the artistic efforts that went into it. Primarily, I mean the art direction and soundtrack. I'm a fan of 2D Indie games as much as the next person, just as I am a fan of the stylized graphics of the Borderlands universe and the art styles of visual novels, but something about how Detroit teeters on the edge of the uncanny valley in the best way possible speaks to how it's trying to reflect the real world. The depth of field in the game is fantastic, and small details are given their deserved attention to make a player feel as though they are watching a real-world story going on in front of them as they play. The music is certainly something that never fails for me in video games (looking at the Sonic games for influencing my love for video game music) but it completely excels in Detroit. Each story has its own collection of songs and a theme - musical loops that repeat throughout the majority of the songs in their sections to boot - and this truly helps with the experience. The way the music helps create an atmosphere, and how it fits almost perfectly into the actions going on, moves you. I don't know how else I can say this, really. Tempo changes, intensity and volume all come together to immerse you into what is happening on screen and have yet to jar me at all from my experience.
I've already mentioned the effect of the music on your mood, but what links well into this is the representation in the game - literally and symbolically. Literally, you see a diverse cast of characters that, despite most of them being androids, provide more proportional race-representation than actual films. Symbolically though, there is a much deeper idea of the past, present and future shown in the game. Perhaps this is me digging a whole lot further than necessary. I wouldn't be surprised. To avoid making this reviews very much filled with spoilers I'll have to talk in a vaguely cryptic way. Throughout Kara's story, there is a sense of being attached to the past, and this is amplified by the tracks that pair with the gameplay, truly making me cry no matter how many times I've seen a similar scene play out before me in a previous run of the game. This same link is shown with Connor and Markus, who link into the present and the past respectively. Unless I want to give away major plot points, I'll have to end my exploration of that little theory there, but if you are planning on playing through, or perhaps doing it again, it may be a good idea to look out for these themes. When you keep them in mind, they seem to pop up all over.
I know plenty of people have a problem with the pacing of the game, which can be quite understandable. Some scenes are long, some bursts of action seem unnecessary and stick around for a while longer than you may want them to, but this doesn't put as much of a damper on playing as it would seem. Pacing is an issue plenty of games have, and it seems perfectly fine to me in Detroit.
This is certainly turning into a much longer review than I had expected to give. I think to wrap this all up I can say that I have an overwhelmingly positive view of this game. Certainly, if you have enough interest in the game to be looking at reviews, this game is for you. I would recommend this for anyone looking for a unique gaming experience.
HerCrazyReviews (247 KP) rated Rent: The Complete Book and Lyrics of the Broadway Musical in Books
Aug 24, 2019
AIDs Representation (1 more)
LGBTQIA+ Representation
Great Representation, Horrible Characters
I have never seen the musical Rent nor have I ever seen the movie (though I heard it is not as good and different from the musical). Therefore, my rating is based solely on this book and because of that, I may not be able to understand or enjoy it as much as I would have if I had watched the movie or musical first.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!