Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jimmy's Hall (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
It’s not to often that we folks in America have the opportunity to catch any movies from Ireland.
The few that do come along almost certainly rate high on the scale of exceptional movies that one would want to see. I myself can’t remember a ‘bad’ Irish film. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the fact that this country has a solid history of countless Irish immigrants coming here and helping to build the foundations for America. Well, today’s film for your consideration doesn’t go back THAT far. It doesn’t even take place in America. However, the history of Irish immigrants (specifically one immigrant) does play a role. Only it involves an Irish immigrant how came to America and then several years later returned to Ireland only to be forcibly deported back to America. I know I know. That explanation makes it sound like a comedy and although the film has many lighthearted moments, I can assure you it’s NOT a comedy. In fact, it deals with an influential figure in one of the more politically turbulent periods in Ireland’s history just before the beginning of the Second World War.
‘Jimmy’s Hall’ is a 2014 Irish-British drama directed by English television and film director Kenneth ‘Ken’ Loach. The film focuses on the events leading up to the deportation from Ireland of Jimmy Gralton, who led a precursor to Ireland’s communist party in the county Leitrim.
Starring Barry Ward, Simone Kirby, and Irish character actor Jim Norton, the film opens in 1932. Jimmy (Ward) has just returned to his home to help his mother tend the family farm after spending 10 years in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression coinciding with the establishment of a new government in the aftermath of the Civil War between pro-British and anti-British forces.
Reluctant to anger his old enemies, the church and the landowners who forced him to leave Ireland, but eager to meet the needs of the people of Leitrim, Jimmy (Ward) decides to reopen the ‘Hall’, a center for young people where they can meet to study, talk, dance, play music, learn to read, debate issues of the day. Free to all and open to anyone who wishes to learn while respecting the views and opinions of others, the ‘Hall’ is an immediate success. Not everyone is pleased to see Jimmy resuming his old activities. In particular the church and local priest (Norton) who see Gralton as not only a ‘bad influence’, but also as a follower of Stalin who as history knows sent countless millions (including religious leaders) to their deaths.
Despite the complaints and at times violent reactions on the part of the supporters of the church and the landowners, Gralton tries desperately to make them realize he has absolutely no connection to Stalin and has no desire to bring down the church. Only to better the situation for everyone. Jimmy even invites the local priest to take a leadership role in the Hall’s committee. In the end though, the fears of the church and the state go unchanged. Jimmy is a communist and although he has no connection Stalin the church and the government see them as one in the same. The police take Jimmy into custody at his family’s farm and forcibly deport him back to America even so much as denying him on last chance to see his ailing mother.
In education systems there are books and films which are considered ‘required reading’ or in this case ‘required viewing’. This film should be required viewing. It is not just an excellent film about a historical Irish political figure or as I mentioned earlier a film about a turbulent point in Irish history. It’s an example of the greater ‘world conflict’ between what became the western bloc and the eastern bloc. Both sides in that grater conflict saw each other the same way the two sides in the Irish countryside of the 1930s saw each other. The ones that meant well and only wanted to better the situation for everyone including themselves inspired fear in those who had power and those who had the power inspired fear in those who meant well. This movie showed that not all political figures are evil … nor are all religious figures. It’s the individual or several individuals within those groups that are reluctant to change.
I would highly recommend this film. Regardless of the content it’s an excellent film. If this film is as good as most films made in Ireland, they definitely need to start exporting them on a grander scale. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
This is your friendly neighborhood photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ I’d like to say thanks for reading and we’ll see you at the movies
The few that do come along almost certainly rate high on the scale of exceptional movies that one would want to see. I myself can’t remember a ‘bad’ Irish film. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the fact that this country has a solid history of countless Irish immigrants coming here and helping to build the foundations for America. Well, today’s film for your consideration doesn’t go back THAT far. It doesn’t even take place in America. However, the history of Irish immigrants (specifically one immigrant) does play a role. Only it involves an Irish immigrant how came to America and then several years later returned to Ireland only to be forcibly deported back to America. I know I know. That explanation makes it sound like a comedy and although the film has many lighthearted moments, I can assure you it’s NOT a comedy. In fact, it deals with an influential figure in one of the more politically turbulent periods in Ireland’s history just before the beginning of the Second World War.
‘Jimmy’s Hall’ is a 2014 Irish-British drama directed by English television and film director Kenneth ‘Ken’ Loach. The film focuses on the events leading up to the deportation from Ireland of Jimmy Gralton, who led a precursor to Ireland’s communist party in the county Leitrim.
Starring Barry Ward, Simone Kirby, and Irish character actor Jim Norton, the film opens in 1932. Jimmy (Ward) has just returned to his home to help his mother tend the family farm after spending 10 years in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression coinciding with the establishment of a new government in the aftermath of the Civil War between pro-British and anti-British forces.
Reluctant to anger his old enemies, the church and the landowners who forced him to leave Ireland, but eager to meet the needs of the people of Leitrim, Jimmy (Ward) decides to reopen the ‘Hall’, a center for young people where they can meet to study, talk, dance, play music, learn to read, debate issues of the day. Free to all and open to anyone who wishes to learn while respecting the views and opinions of others, the ‘Hall’ is an immediate success. Not everyone is pleased to see Jimmy resuming his old activities. In particular the church and local priest (Norton) who see Gralton as not only a ‘bad influence’, but also as a follower of Stalin who as history knows sent countless millions (including religious leaders) to their deaths.
Despite the complaints and at times violent reactions on the part of the supporters of the church and the landowners, Gralton tries desperately to make them realize he has absolutely no connection to Stalin and has no desire to bring down the church. Only to better the situation for everyone. Jimmy even invites the local priest to take a leadership role in the Hall’s committee. In the end though, the fears of the church and the state go unchanged. Jimmy is a communist and although he has no connection Stalin the church and the government see them as one in the same. The police take Jimmy into custody at his family’s farm and forcibly deport him back to America even so much as denying him on last chance to see his ailing mother.
In education systems there are books and films which are considered ‘required reading’ or in this case ‘required viewing’. This film should be required viewing. It is not just an excellent film about a historical Irish political figure or as I mentioned earlier a film about a turbulent point in Irish history. It’s an example of the greater ‘world conflict’ between what became the western bloc and the eastern bloc. Both sides in that grater conflict saw each other the same way the two sides in the Irish countryside of the 1930s saw each other. The ones that meant well and only wanted to better the situation for everyone including themselves inspired fear in those who had power and those who had the power inspired fear in those who meant well. This movie showed that not all political figures are evil … nor are all religious figures. It’s the individual or several individuals within those groups that are reluctant to change.
I would highly recommend this film. Regardless of the content it’s an excellent film. If this film is as good as most films made in Ireland, they definitely need to start exporting them on a grander scale. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
This is your friendly neighborhood photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ I’d like to say thanks for reading and we’ll see you at the movies
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Aug 22, 2021
Having been out of the "coming soon" game for quite a while so this one came as a surprise when I saw the trailer. It looked good, but there's always that "what is Shyamalan going to do" feeling.
An idyllic resort, a glorious beach. What starts out to be a pleasant day trip turns into tragedy and horror as the guests start ageing at an accelerated rate. What's going on and why can't they seem to do anything about it?
I'm going to mix this up a bit from my usual reviews because it seems appropriate for this oddity of a film.
As a whole, the film probably has a place in the Lost extended universe (especially considering Miles' role in it). Mystery and generalised horror abound, and you're left for prolonged periods of time with more questions than answers. Let's cover the biggie though.
That whole ageing thing... it is in the trailer so I'm going to do my best not to be spoilery.
Let's face it... there's a massive inconsistency. I'm happy to go with the fact that kids will change more physically with age than the adults will initially... no problem with that bit. But the assembled people on the beach have been there for (more or less) two different periods of time. While I don't remember it being established when the first arrived, I would have expected a more pronounced visual than the one we were presented with.
When the group get to the beach, Maddox is 11 and her brother Trent is 6. then there's Kara who is also 6. They progressively age throughout the events and we end up with three teenage looking kids. I'm still on board here, perfectly "logical". But here is also where I start to tail off into what could be a massive psychological debate... their bodies age, but their minds are only exposed to what is around them in that time, so are their actions in line with that?
Thomasin McKenzie seemed to have the right balance, with her character at a starting age of 11 she has the best chance of getting away with it, and her effort was good. I'm not sure the same is true of Alex Wolff and Eliza Scanlen though. Their storyline together, and their behaviour, didn't feel consistent. Particularly with Trent. Mentally the pair should still have been 6, or at least more immature than their look, but that didn't come across very effectively.
We're introduced to all of the characters in fairly quick succession at the beginning, but you do get a very clear idea about what you can expect from them going forward. They don't all really work together, and if chaos wasn't a necessary part of the film then I think I would have tired quickly of them all. As it was, I didn't particularly like any of the characters, including the parents of Trent and Maddox, but at least their journey evolved well through the film.
I feel like I need to mention the dubious sexualisation of the kids, in particular when we have Thomasin McKenzie as Maddox. When they discover the kids have aged up, Mum tells her to change into a swimsuit she has in her bag. The swimsuit she was already wearing covered everything relatively well, and actually has more cloth on it than the alternative. When I think about the things I bring to a beach in my bag with me, I bring a t-shirt, shorts, a sarong... never a second bikini. Would it not have been more logical to give her something different to wear? And was it really necessary to be there at all? I also have another point under this, but it would constitute spoilers I'm afraid.
Old's beach location is stunning, and some of the features allow for a slightly sinister edge. But a lot of the atmosphere is brought in with the cameras, and at one point I felt a rage come over me because of a collection of panning shots of the group. Yes, I know there are better things to be annoyed about, but it bugged me, I couldn't help it!
As a quick round-up of other points:
- I quite enjoyed Shyamalan's role
- Listening to people pronounce my surname wrong gives me palpitations, and
- The one bit of massively noticeable CGI was bad, so very, very, bad.
I'm interested to read the source material and see how its ending compares to what Shyamalan conjured. It's difficult to discuss the end without spoilers, but that's probably just as well because it'll lead to another heavy discussion. The actual resolution though does have a satisfying moment, even though it felt a little wrong.
Now for my overall feelings on the film... I enjoyed the mystery of it, and there are plenty of debates that arise. But the inconsistent moments in the ageing and how the ending comes around, sadly ate into my total score.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/old-movie-review.html
An idyllic resort, a glorious beach. What starts out to be a pleasant day trip turns into tragedy and horror as the guests start ageing at an accelerated rate. What's going on and why can't they seem to do anything about it?
I'm going to mix this up a bit from my usual reviews because it seems appropriate for this oddity of a film.
As a whole, the film probably has a place in the Lost extended universe (especially considering Miles' role in it). Mystery and generalised horror abound, and you're left for prolonged periods of time with more questions than answers. Let's cover the biggie though.
That whole ageing thing... it is in the trailer so I'm going to do my best not to be spoilery.
Let's face it... there's a massive inconsistency. I'm happy to go with the fact that kids will change more physically with age than the adults will initially... no problem with that bit. But the assembled people on the beach have been there for (more or less) two different periods of time. While I don't remember it being established when the first arrived, I would have expected a more pronounced visual than the one we were presented with.
When the group get to the beach, Maddox is 11 and her brother Trent is 6. then there's Kara who is also 6. They progressively age throughout the events and we end up with three teenage looking kids. I'm still on board here, perfectly "logical". But here is also where I start to tail off into what could be a massive psychological debate... their bodies age, but their minds are only exposed to what is around them in that time, so are their actions in line with that?
Thomasin McKenzie seemed to have the right balance, with her character at a starting age of 11 she has the best chance of getting away with it, and her effort was good. I'm not sure the same is true of Alex Wolff and Eliza Scanlen though. Their storyline together, and their behaviour, didn't feel consistent. Particularly with Trent. Mentally the pair should still have been 6, or at least more immature than their look, but that didn't come across very effectively.
We're introduced to all of the characters in fairly quick succession at the beginning, but you do get a very clear idea about what you can expect from them going forward. They don't all really work together, and if chaos wasn't a necessary part of the film then I think I would have tired quickly of them all. As it was, I didn't particularly like any of the characters, including the parents of Trent and Maddox, but at least their journey evolved well through the film.
I feel like I need to mention the dubious sexualisation of the kids, in particular when we have Thomasin McKenzie as Maddox. When they discover the kids have aged up, Mum tells her to change into a swimsuit she has in her bag. The swimsuit she was already wearing covered everything relatively well, and actually has more cloth on it than the alternative. When I think about the things I bring to a beach in my bag with me, I bring a t-shirt, shorts, a sarong... never a second bikini. Would it not have been more logical to give her something different to wear? And was it really necessary to be there at all? I also have another point under this, but it would constitute spoilers I'm afraid.
Old's beach location is stunning, and some of the features allow for a slightly sinister edge. But a lot of the atmosphere is brought in with the cameras, and at one point I felt a rage come over me because of a collection of panning shots of the group. Yes, I know there are better things to be annoyed about, but it bugged me, I couldn't help it!
As a quick round-up of other points:
- I quite enjoyed Shyamalan's role
- Listening to people pronounce my surname wrong gives me palpitations, and
- The one bit of massively noticeable CGI was bad, so very, very, bad.
I'm interested to read the source material and see how its ending compares to what Shyamalan conjured. It's difficult to discuss the end without spoilers, but that's probably just as well because it'll lead to another heavy discussion. The actual resolution though does have a satisfying moment, even though it felt a little wrong.
Now for my overall feelings on the film... I enjoyed the mystery of it, and there are plenty of debates that arise. But the inconsistent moments in the ageing and how the ending comes around, sadly ate into my total score.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/old-movie-review.html
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in Video Games
Jul 21, 2017
Poor Graphics (3 more)
Awkward Animation
Glitches Galore
Rushed Ending
Can He Swing From A Web? Yeah, But That’s About All He Can Do…
You may be thinking Dan, why the hell are you reviewing a low rated movie tie in game that came out three years ago? Well, I would say, that is a very valid question. I am reviewing this game because I actually believe it is one of the most relevant games I’ve played so far this year in terms of the wider gaming landscape, so yeah you have me rumbled, this won’t be so much a review of The Amazing Spiderman 2 for PS4 as it will be a commentary on bad games in general and their place in the modern gaming landscape.
I had just come off of finally getting around to playing Until Dawn at the start of January. A well made, well written, well acted, well executed teen horror story that had atmosphere and intrigue in spades. I then went on to play a game that I thought was mediocre by comparison, DMC Definitive Edition. When playing through the story I was so underwhelmed and disappointed in what they had turned this once great franchise into, an angsty, melodramatic, arcade slash ‘em up with as much depth as the shallow end of the kiddies swimming pool. I thought what a waste of cash and time. What a piece of garbage. Oh how naive I was, I had no idea how much worse it could get. After beating DMC and the attached story DLC that came with the Definitive Edition, I popped out the game and slid in The Amazing Spiderman 2. The first thing that I noticed was that the game graphically is at the same level if not worse than the first Amazing Spiderman game on PS3, but I thought hey, games with under par graphics can still be fun, UI’s and poly counts aren’t everything so I began working my way through the main story. Let’s start with the only positive that this game has going for it, the web slinging. Traversal feels and looks great in the game, zipping around NYC is a treat and when everything works correctly, you can pull off some truly spectacular acrobatics while shooting around in mid air. The shoulder buttons on the controller are matched to Spidey’s arms, left trigger for left swing, right trigger for right swing, and unlike the last game, in this one the web shooters have to be aimed at a building in order to perform a successful swing. The important phrase here, is ‘when it works.’ There were several times when I would be right next to a building and press the trigger to swing, only to hear Spidey say, ‘Hey, this just in, web slingers need something to stick to.’ No shit Spidey, that’s why I’m pressing the trigger on the side where the huge fucking skyscraper is. Also, there would be times when I had a decent amount of momentum going, swing left, right, left, right consecutively and as I pressed the left trigger again to attach to the building on my left, for some odd reason, Spidey would fire his right hand web shooter, attaching to a distant building on the right, turning me away from the direction I was swinging and totally ruining my momentum, this was particularly frustrating during boss fights and chase sequences or when swinging against the clock. Overall though traversal is fun, okay now that the positive is out of the way, let’s rip this thing apart. Animations are stiff, glitches are common and every cutscene in the game ends abruptly with an awkward animation that resembles the look of a news anchor when they run out of words to read off the teleprompter, but the camera is still rolling. Why they decided to add a dialogue system, I have no idea, it is so unnecessary and out of place and has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the game’s narrative, it’s simply there for the sake of having a dialogue option. The plot is fairly standard, but is bearable for the first two thirds of the game, however the point that the publishers told the development team to get a move on and meet the deadline to coincide with the release of the movie becomes instantly clear. The last 5 or so chapters in the game are so rushed it’s like going through a checklist. The first bossfight in the last third of the game is pretty mundane, but at least there is an attempt at a build up to it. However after that fight you are teleported to the top of a skyscraper to battle Electro in a boss fight with the least build up ever. So you do that and then you are corrected, this next boss fight with the Green Goblin is the least build up to a boss fight ever. You don’t see the transformation of either Electro or the Goblin and honestly, if I hadn’t seen the movie that goes with this game, I would not have had a clue about what was going on. Then it’s as if the game remembers that they made a half arsed attempt at introducing Carnage away back at the beginning of the story and so they throw in another out of the blue boss fight to end the game. Wow, this lack of story build up and context wouldn’t have been acceptable in a PS1 game, it certainly isn’t acceptable here. Also the game again (just like the first one,) tries to copy the Arkham games in terms of the stealth and combat systems and miserably fails.
In my opinion, games like this; lazy, half arsed cash grabs, just aren’t acceptable in today’s modern landscape of video games. I thought DMC was a slog, but after playing this piece of dogshit, DMC is game of the year material. So please, please stop. Until you have a dedicated team who genuinely want to make a good game for fans of a franchise, don’t bother. Signed by everyone.
I had just come off of finally getting around to playing Until Dawn at the start of January. A well made, well written, well acted, well executed teen horror story that had atmosphere and intrigue in spades. I then went on to play a game that I thought was mediocre by comparison, DMC Definitive Edition. When playing through the story I was so underwhelmed and disappointed in what they had turned this once great franchise into, an angsty, melodramatic, arcade slash ‘em up with as much depth as the shallow end of the kiddies swimming pool. I thought what a waste of cash and time. What a piece of garbage. Oh how naive I was, I had no idea how much worse it could get. After beating DMC and the attached story DLC that came with the Definitive Edition, I popped out the game and slid in The Amazing Spiderman 2. The first thing that I noticed was that the game graphically is at the same level if not worse than the first Amazing Spiderman game on PS3, but I thought hey, games with under par graphics can still be fun, UI’s and poly counts aren’t everything so I began working my way through the main story. Let’s start with the only positive that this game has going for it, the web slinging. Traversal feels and looks great in the game, zipping around NYC is a treat and when everything works correctly, you can pull off some truly spectacular acrobatics while shooting around in mid air. The shoulder buttons on the controller are matched to Spidey’s arms, left trigger for left swing, right trigger for right swing, and unlike the last game, in this one the web shooters have to be aimed at a building in order to perform a successful swing. The important phrase here, is ‘when it works.’ There were several times when I would be right next to a building and press the trigger to swing, only to hear Spidey say, ‘Hey, this just in, web slingers need something to stick to.’ No shit Spidey, that’s why I’m pressing the trigger on the side where the huge fucking skyscraper is. Also, there would be times when I had a decent amount of momentum going, swing left, right, left, right consecutively and as I pressed the left trigger again to attach to the building on my left, for some odd reason, Spidey would fire his right hand web shooter, attaching to a distant building on the right, turning me away from the direction I was swinging and totally ruining my momentum, this was particularly frustrating during boss fights and chase sequences or when swinging against the clock. Overall though traversal is fun, okay now that the positive is out of the way, let’s rip this thing apart. Animations are stiff, glitches are common and every cutscene in the game ends abruptly with an awkward animation that resembles the look of a news anchor when they run out of words to read off the teleprompter, but the camera is still rolling. Why they decided to add a dialogue system, I have no idea, it is so unnecessary and out of place and has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the game’s narrative, it’s simply there for the sake of having a dialogue option. The plot is fairly standard, but is bearable for the first two thirds of the game, however the point that the publishers told the development team to get a move on and meet the deadline to coincide with the release of the movie becomes instantly clear. The last 5 or so chapters in the game are so rushed it’s like going through a checklist. The first bossfight in the last third of the game is pretty mundane, but at least there is an attempt at a build up to it. However after that fight you are teleported to the top of a skyscraper to battle Electro in a boss fight with the least build up ever. So you do that and then you are corrected, this next boss fight with the Green Goblin is the least build up to a boss fight ever. You don’t see the transformation of either Electro or the Goblin and honestly, if I hadn’t seen the movie that goes with this game, I would not have had a clue about what was going on. Then it’s as if the game remembers that they made a half arsed attempt at introducing Carnage away back at the beginning of the story and so they throw in another out of the blue boss fight to end the game. Wow, this lack of story build up and context wouldn’t have been acceptable in a PS1 game, it certainly isn’t acceptable here. Also the game again (just like the first one,) tries to copy the Arkham games in terms of the stealth and combat systems and miserably fails.
In my opinion, games like this; lazy, half arsed cash grabs, just aren’t acceptable in today’s modern landscape of video games. I thought DMC was a slog, but after playing this piece of dogshit, DMC is game of the year material. So please, please stop. Until you have a dedicated team who genuinely want to make a good game for fans of a franchise, don’t bother. Signed by everyone.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated An Unwanted Guest in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Eerie read with a rather tidy ending
Mitchell's Inn is a lovely lodge far away from the hustle and bustle of it all--there's no wifi, just a relaxing setting, good food, and comfortable rooms. But this particular weekend, things go awry when a bad storm hits, covering the Inn in ice and knocking out the power: there's no phone service or the ability for anyone to leave the premises. Then, by morning, one of the guests is dead. It could be an accident, but no one can say for sure. And when the second guest dies, it's certain: they are trapped with a murderer. There's no power, no contact with the world, and someone is slowly killing them off. Is someone else next and how do the remaining guests stay safe?
"It feels like they're playing at something, some sort of parlor game, or murder mystery evening, with the lights out. Only no one's having fun."
Believe it or not, I've never read a book by Shari Lapena, but I was drawn to this one due to the Agatha Christie comparisons, as I'm a sucker for anything similar to Christie. And this one definitely had some likenesses, with the guests trapped in the Inn, limiting our pool of suspects (and victims). Weirdly enough, my brain kept occasionally going to the movie Clue too - silly, I know, but something about the setting!
This book draws you in from the beginning; the first death happens fairly quickly. There are a lot of characters to keep track of: most are in pairs, and I found myself flipping back a page or two trying to remember who was attached to whom for a while. The narration style is in very short paragraphs, each from the perspective of a different guest. This gives you a bit of whiplash feel at times, as you never really get to fully immerse yourself in anyone's point of view. Still, while I did feel things slowed slightly after the first death, for the most part it keeps things moving fairly quickly and lets you see things from a variety of sides.
Lapena is also very descriptive and sets the scene well. It's easy to picture this lovely Inn--which quickly turns dark and disastrous. The book is actually creepy and eerie at times; I won't go into detail as to why, to avoid spoilers, but I definitely found myself a little spooked. In fact, I was surprised the guests were so calm in the beginning, what with a dead woman and no power! (Don't worry, it won't last.) The novel allows you to think how you'd feel in that particular situation. It certainly doesn't encourage you to go vacation at a remote Inn anytime soon.
I was certainly completely perplexed at whodunnit, so kudos to Lapena for that. With such a limited cast of characters (and getting slimmer every moment), that's quite a feat. I thought the ending was a bit tidy and I was left feeling oddly letdown; I'm not sure I can even explain why.
Overall, I enjoyed this one even I didn't wildly love it. It does have a bit of a Christie feel to it, and it kept me guessing. The scene setting is excellent, and I liked the eerie, trapped sense I felt while reading. It wraps up a tad neatly, but I'd still recommend it.
"It feels like they're playing at something, some sort of parlor game, or murder mystery evening, with the lights out. Only no one's having fun."
Believe it or not, I've never read a book by Shari Lapena, but I was drawn to this one due to the Agatha Christie comparisons, as I'm a sucker for anything similar to Christie. And this one definitely had some likenesses, with the guests trapped in the Inn, limiting our pool of suspects (and victims). Weirdly enough, my brain kept occasionally going to the movie Clue too - silly, I know, but something about the setting!
This book draws you in from the beginning; the first death happens fairly quickly. There are a lot of characters to keep track of: most are in pairs, and I found myself flipping back a page or two trying to remember who was attached to whom for a while. The narration style is in very short paragraphs, each from the perspective of a different guest. This gives you a bit of whiplash feel at times, as you never really get to fully immerse yourself in anyone's point of view. Still, while I did feel things slowed slightly after the first death, for the most part it keeps things moving fairly quickly and lets you see things from a variety of sides.
Lapena is also very descriptive and sets the scene well. It's easy to picture this lovely Inn--which quickly turns dark and disastrous. The book is actually creepy and eerie at times; I won't go into detail as to why, to avoid spoilers, but I definitely found myself a little spooked. In fact, I was surprised the guests were so calm in the beginning, what with a dead woman and no power! (Don't worry, it won't last.) The novel allows you to think how you'd feel in that particular situation. It certainly doesn't encourage you to go vacation at a remote Inn anytime soon.
I was certainly completely perplexed at whodunnit, so kudos to Lapena for that. With such a limited cast of characters (and getting slimmer every moment), that's quite a feat. I thought the ending was a bit tidy and I was left feeling oddly letdown; I'm not sure I can even explain why.
Overall, I enjoyed this one even I didn't wildly love it. It does have a bit of a Christie feel to it, and it kept me guessing. The scene setting is excellent, and I liked the eerie, trapped sense I felt while reading. It wraps up a tad neatly, but I'd still recommend it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The BFG (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Spielberg, where are you?
Roald Dahl’s inspiring novels have had a chequered history when it comes to turning them into films. Danny DeVito’s Matilda is widely regarded as one of the best adaptations, with Tim Burton’s Charlie & the Chocolate Factory rendered a monstrosity by fans of the author and movie critics alike.
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Princess Bride: Storming The Castle in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
You haven’t played this game? Inconceivable! Actually, quite conceivable. I wasn’t really into the board game hobby when this came out in 2008, so of course I did not pick it up at release. I am a big Princess Bride fan, and I probably would have picked it up at release because I’m a sucker for certain IPs. There are few copies of this still floating around for sale, so it can be had at a modest price. However, will you enjoy it? Will it bore you “to the pain”? Read on.
So this game, at its heart, is a racing game. You will be racing your pawn toward Humperdinck’s castle in the middle of the table, and you need to traverse several Path cards depicting different areas in the Princess Bride universe. Each of these Path cards will dictate whether you will need specific equipment/items to gain access, or if they are free of that requirement. If you start your turn at the gates of the castle, or have an item allowing you entry sooner, you win!
Ok, the bad. The components are just not great. The box is flimsy and boring. The insert is laughable. The cards are acceptable quality – don’t expect any better quality than normal playing cards picked up at the dollar store. The art on the cards is also very boring and the ink used on the cards seems to be flaking a bit after just a few plays. Screen grabs on cards are fine to me, but the choices made on some of these cards are very questionable. The pawns are poorly designed and they fall over all the time, which is unfortunate when you have to play on a smaller table.
The good now. Owning a Princess Bride game that I can pull out and actually play and have a decent time is a positive for me. There are other games with this same IP that are… not at all fun. This one actually has some gameplay to it that you can enjoy for a while, and even crave future plays. Yes, it feels a bit like Munchkin in that you are trying to achieve the winning goal and your opponents are trying their hardest to delay you. However, it differs due to the fact that the pile-on is slow and you have to basically forfeit your turn to debilitate your opponent. Is that strategy worth it? I’m not so sure…
Does it make you feel like you are in the story? Not really. Do you shudder when the RUSes and Shrieking Eels come into play? Nah, but they are so formidable in the story! Is the GAME worth it though? Yeah, it is. If you are a fan of the book or movie, this is the best Princess Bride game out there. Will another game come out and knock it off the top spot? I hope so. But for now, I am happy with my copy of the game. Perhaps I will look into blinging it out a bit to make it more epic. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a swashbuckling 7 / 12.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/the-princess-bride-storming-the-castle-review/
So this game, at its heart, is a racing game. You will be racing your pawn toward Humperdinck’s castle in the middle of the table, and you need to traverse several Path cards depicting different areas in the Princess Bride universe. Each of these Path cards will dictate whether you will need specific equipment/items to gain access, or if they are free of that requirement. If you start your turn at the gates of the castle, or have an item allowing you entry sooner, you win!
Ok, the bad. The components are just not great. The box is flimsy and boring. The insert is laughable. The cards are acceptable quality – don’t expect any better quality than normal playing cards picked up at the dollar store. The art on the cards is also very boring and the ink used on the cards seems to be flaking a bit after just a few plays. Screen grabs on cards are fine to me, but the choices made on some of these cards are very questionable. The pawns are poorly designed and they fall over all the time, which is unfortunate when you have to play on a smaller table.
The good now. Owning a Princess Bride game that I can pull out and actually play and have a decent time is a positive for me. There are other games with this same IP that are… not at all fun. This one actually has some gameplay to it that you can enjoy for a while, and even crave future plays. Yes, it feels a bit like Munchkin in that you are trying to achieve the winning goal and your opponents are trying their hardest to delay you. However, it differs due to the fact that the pile-on is slow and you have to basically forfeit your turn to debilitate your opponent. Is that strategy worth it? I’m not so sure…
Does it make you feel like you are in the story? Not really. Do you shudder when the RUSes and Shrieking Eels come into play? Nah, but they are so formidable in the story! Is the GAME worth it though? Yeah, it is. If you are a fan of the book or movie, this is the best Princess Bride game out there. Will another game come out and knock it off the top spot? I hope so. But for now, I am happy with my copy of the game. Perhaps I will look into blinging it out a bit to make it more epic. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a swashbuckling 7 / 12.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/the-princess-bride-storming-the-castle-review/
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Looking for Alaska in Books
Jan 25, 2018
I just finished reading Looking for Alaska, making it the fifth John Green book I've read, after Will Grayson, Will Grayson, Let It Snow, The Fault In Our Stars, and An Abundance of Katherines. I enjoyed Looking for Alaska immensely, just like I did the other three. (My favorite being Let It Snow, which he wrote with two other authors as a set of three related short stories.) I haven't made a habit out of reading young adult fiction, but for John Green I'll definitely make an exception. I should also pick up some of Maureen Johnson's books; her contribution to Let It Snow was excellent.
I have a confession to make before I go any further: I am a Nerdfighter. I was introduced to John and Hank Green about two years ago by one of my best friends, by way of Crash Course. Since then I've (almost!) caught up on their Vlogbrother videos, watched most of the Crash Course videos (sorry Hank, I'm just not into chemistry) and started watching Sci Show. John and Hank are both extremely educated, well spoken, and yet extremely entertaining and fun to watch. Watching the vlogbrothers episodes where John talks about writing the books (as he's writing them!) is what finally made me go pick up his books to read. And he's GOOD.
In Looking for Alaska, Miles Halter goes away to boarding school at Culver Creek, his father's alma mater. He's in search of his "great perhaps," his meaning for life. (The phrase comes from Francois Rabelais' last words "I go to seek a Great Perhaps." Miles doesn't want to wait until he dies to go in search of his.) Culver Creek really marks a turning point in Miles' life - from a friendless outcast in his old school to one of the closest friends of Alaska Young. Alaska is a bit of a bad girl (sneaking cigarettes and alcohol into school constantly and pulling ingenious pranks) but also an enigma. The entire school body loves her, but even to her closest friends she doesn't reveal much about herself.
The book is divided into "before" and "after" and it wasn't until within a few pages till the end of the "before" section that I realized what the event was. "After" deals with the characters of the book coming to terms with their life-altering event.
In The Fault In Our Stars, John Green dealt with the lead up to a life-altering event that the characters knew was coming - a long, drawn-out sort of grief. Looking For Alaska deals with the fallout of an event no one knew was coming, and while the emotions are just as deep, they feel sharper somehow for being so unexpected.
I definitely recommend this book, and all of John Green's books. He's a very talented writer, and isn't afraid to put "adult" themes into his "young adult" books. As if sex and alcohol and death and deep meaning-of-life questions aren't things every teenager deals with? I like that he doesn't pull his emotional punches. His books may be "young adult" but they're not fluffy or "easy to read." Easy in terms of grammar and flow perhaps, but not in content. I teared up reading parts of Looking For Alaska, and outright sobbed for a good portion of The Fault In Our Stars. (Which is now a movie!)
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com (review originally written 4 years ago.)
I have a confession to make before I go any further: I am a Nerdfighter. I was introduced to John and Hank Green about two years ago by one of my best friends, by way of Crash Course. Since then I've (almost!) caught up on their Vlogbrother videos, watched most of the Crash Course videos (sorry Hank, I'm just not into chemistry) and started watching Sci Show. John and Hank are both extremely educated, well spoken, and yet extremely entertaining and fun to watch. Watching the vlogbrothers episodes where John talks about writing the books (as he's writing them!) is what finally made me go pick up his books to read. And he's GOOD.
In Looking for Alaska, Miles Halter goes away to boarding school at Culver Creek, his father's alma mater. He's in search of his "great perhaps," his meaning for life. (The phrase comes from Francois Rabelais' last words "I go to seek a Great Perhaps." Miles doesn't want to wait until he dies to go in search of his.) Culver Creek really marks a turning point in Miles' life - from a friendless outcast in his old school to one of the closest friends of Alaska Young. Alaska is a bit of a bad girl (sneaking cigarettes and alcohol into school constantly and pulling ingenious pranks) but also an enigma. The entire school body loves her, but even to her closest friends she doesn't reveal much about herself.
The book is divided into "before" and "after" and it wasn't until within a few pages till the end of the "before" section that I realized what the event was. "After" deals with the characters of the book coming to terms with their life-altering event.
In The Fault In Our Stars, John Green dealt with the lead up to a life-altering event that the characters knew was coming - a long, drawn-out sort of grief. Looking For Alaska deals with the fallout of an event no one knew was coming, and while the emotions are just as deep, they feel sharper somehow for being so unexpected.
I definitely recommend this book, and all of John Green's books. He's a very talented writer, and isn't afraid to put "adult" themes into his "young adult" books. As if sex and alcohol and death and deep meaning-of-life questions aren't things every teenager deals with? I like that he doesn't pull his emotional punches. His books may be "young adult" but they're not fluffy or "easy to read." Easy in terms of grammar and flow perhaps, but not in content. I teared up reading parts of Looking For Alaska, and outright sobbed for a good portion of The Fault In Our Stars. (Which is now a movie!)
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com (review originally written 4 years ago.)
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Rosemary's Baby (Rosemary's Baby, #1) in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b><i>This is no dream, she thought. This is real, this is happening.</i></b>
<b>Note to self and others:</b> beware of overly friendly neighbours.
This is amazing. At just over 200 pages, this novel takes you on a hell (excuse the pun) of a journey that you wont forget anytime soon. Levin has managed to make a novel so witty, and at the same time, so terrifying. In a way, the tone of this book is reminiscent of American Psycho (or rather American Psycho is reminiscent of this as it came out afterwards), but rather than in-your-face vulgar gore, this is far more psychologically disturbing. Never has such a mundane life, as Rosemarys and Guys, ever been so horrifying.
Id already watched the movie when I picked this up, so I knew what this novel was about and what happened, and I think, maybe, that made me enjoy this <i>more.</i> When you know how the story plays out, the tension in this really grips you and you find yourself angry and empathetic towards Rosemarys naivety. I think if I went into this novel not knowing, Rosemary would have simply pissed me off, shes that sort of weak and dependant woman I oh-so hate in books, but it was a different experience for me, knowing what I know. Thats not to say you wont like this going into it blind, Im sure the tension and horror of this will affect you just the same way <i>and</i>_ you'll get the pleasure of the pure shock of the discovery, something I didn't.
Ive said previously that I find it hard to really <i>hate</i> a character in a book, as I often find things to like about them, despite all their bad ways, but thats not the case in this one. Lets just say there is one specific character in this I hate more than anyone (in any other book ever, so far) for their betrayal, all for their own selfish gain.
The ending of this novel is one of the hardest, if not <i>the</i> hardest to swallow. Its <i>so</i> distressing and <i>so</i> upsetting. I cant say anything more than that, but its truly awful.
Im really trying not to give too much away with this review, its hard not to say so many things, but I think its OK to mention the fact this book is about devilry (its written on the book as a quote from Capote so it cant exactly be ignored)! This is a truly terrifying novel, and if you had qualms about having children before, youll definitely have more after reading this book.
This is a one-sitting read for me and Im actually excited to re-read it sometime in the future. This work is a masterpiece. Levin is an incredible writer and Im now aiming to read the rest of his work by the end of the year (yes, even <i>Son of Rosemary</i>, even though it has the worst ratings ever).
P.S. Even if you dont like horror, youll most likely enjoy this book as its not openly trying to freak you out. Its far more a suspense novel that gets in your head.
<b>Note to self and others:</b> beware of overly friendly neighbours.
This is amazing. At just over 200 pages, this novel takes you on a hell (excuse the pun) of a journey that you wont forget anytime soon. Levin has managed to make a novel so witty, and at the same time, so terrifying. In a way, the tone of this book is reminiscent of American Psycho (or rather American Psycho is reminiscent of this as it came out afterwards), but rather than in-your-face vulgar gore, this is far more psychologically disturbing. Never has such a mundane life, as Rosemarys and Guys, ever been so horrifying.
Id already watched the movie when I picked this up, so I knew what this novel was about and what happened, and I think, maybe, that made me enjoy this <i>more.</i> When you know how the story plays out, the tension in this really grips you and you find yourself angry and empathetic towards Rosemarys naivety. I think if I went into this novel not knowing, Rosemary would have simply pissed me off, shes that sort of weak and dependant woman I oh-so hate in books, but it was a different experience for me, knowing what I know. Thats not to say you wont like this going into it blind, Im sure the tension and horror of this will affect you just the same way <i>and</i>_ you'll get the pleasure of the pure shock of the discovery, something I didn't.
Ive said previously that I find it hard to really <i>hate</i> a character in a book, as I often find things to like about them, despite all their bad ways, but thats not the case in this one. Lets just say there is one specific character in this I hate more than anyone (in any other book ever, so far) for their betrayal, all for their own selfish gain.
The ending of this novel is one of the hardest, if not <i>the</i> hardest to swallow. Its <i>so</i> distressing and <i>so</i> upsetting. I cant say anything more than that, but its truly awful.
Im really trying not to give too much away with this review, its hard not to say so many things, but I think its OK to mention the fact this book is about devilry (its written on the book as a quote from Capote so it cant exactly be ignored)! This is a truly terrifying novel, and if you had qualms about having children before, youll definitely have more after reading this book.
This is a one-sitting read for me and Im actually excited to re-read it sometime in the future. This work is a masterpiece. Levin is an incredible writer and Im now aiming to read the rest of his work by the end of the year (yes, even <i>Son of Rosemary</i>, even though it has the worst ratings ever).
P.S. Even if you dont like horror, youll most likely enjoy this book as its not openly trying to freak you out. Its far more a suspense novel that gets in your head.
Christina Haynes (148 KP) rated The Fandom in Books
Mar 26, 2018
The Fandom
The Fandom
By Anna Day
Review: Christina Haynes
Ever loved a story so much that you wanted to jump inside the book and be apart of it. Imagine going to 'comic con' dressed up as your favourite character. Then actually becoming them in their world. Violet her two best friends; Alice and Katie. And her little brother Nate. Arrive at 'comic con' dressed up as their favourite characters from a book/film called 'The Gallows Dance'
Whilst meeting their favourite actors who play the lead characters in the movie, something happened and they get transported into the real Gallows Dance. Only they don't know this until the main character Rose gets killed and Violet who's dressed up as Rose has to take over her role.
So a little information about the Gallows Dance. The Gallows Dance is a book within this book, written by an author called Sally King. The characters in the book are called 'The Imps or the Gems'
The Imps are lower class citizens they live on the streets or in small houses, sealed in the old cities whilst the Gems have the countryside. The Imps don't have much, they are rife with disease and crime, they all look different and not 'what the gems like'
The Gems, however, are PERFECT. They are genetically enhanced to have the perfect body, the perfect mind and life. They live in these perfect houses and have taken over the stately homes and castles all for themselves. They have servants and go to balls almost every day, they stick to only Gems and marry only Gems.
The Gallows Dance is set in a dystopian London but in a very backwards way, for example, the Gallows is where they hang the Imps like they hung people back in the Elizabethan era in Tyburn, where they would hang 'Witches' The clothing is similar to this (well this is how I imaged it anyway) of course things are more like now, with the landmarks, but its all very backwards.
In the 'Gallows Dance' Rose is a rebel Imp who wants to with the rebels help, stop all Gems from being 'THE RULERS' and treating Imps like they are the lowest of all humans and that the Gems are the best. She heads into the Gem's world and tries to find out secrets to destroy the Gem government. She does this by working for the Gems as a servant in the Pastures, to gain the secrets about a powerful Gem, Jeremy Harper. She does this by befriending his son Willow Harper. However, Willow falls for Rose and in return, she falls for him. As the story goes on they both run away to which Rose is caught and hanged at the 'Gallows Dance' but not before Willow confesses his love for her. Which puts an end to the 'Gallows Dance' once and for all and everyone will live as one again, no more Imps and Gems. They will simply just be Humans.
But all this won't happen if Violet doesn't complete the story how Rose would of. If Violet does not get Willow to fall for her and follow her to the Gallows. Then they will all be stuck in the book forever and never be able to go home.
So time is ticking for Violet and her friends, they have exactly one week before Rose who's now Violet is due to hang. So Violet had better start learning her lines.
3 ½ – NOT A BAD BOOK / BUT I REALLY LIKED IT
By Anna Day
Review: Christina Haynes
Ever loved a story so much that you wanted to jump inside the book and be apart of it. Imagine going to 'comic con' dressed up as your favourite character. Then actually becoming them in their world. Violet her two best friends; Alice and Katie. And her little brother Nate. Arrive at 'comic con' dressed up as their favourite characters from a book/film called 'The Gallows Dance'
Whilst meeting their favourite actors who play the lead characters in the movie, something happened and they get transported into the real Gallows Dance. Only they don't know this until the main character Rose gets killed and Violet who's dressed up as Rose has to take over her role.
So a little information about the Gallows Dance. The Gallows Dance is a book within this book, written by an author called Sally King. The characters in the book are called 'The Imps or the Gems'
The Imps are lower class citizens they live on the streets or in small houses, sealed in the old cities whilst the Gems have the countryside. The Imps don't have much, they are rife with disease and crime, they all look different and not 'what the gems like'
The Gems, however, are PERFECT. They are genetically enhanced to have the perfect body, the perfect mind and life. They live in these perfect houses and have taken over the stately homes and castles all for themselves. They have servants and go to balls almost every day, they stick to only Gems and marry only Gems.
The Gallows Dance is set in a dystopian London but in a very backwards way, for example, the Gallows is where they hang the Imps like they hung people back in the Elizabethan era in Tyburn, where they would hang 'Witches' The clothing is similar to this (well this is how I imaged it anyway) of course things are more like now, with the landmarks, but its all very backwards.
In the 'Gallows Dance' Rose is a rebel Imp who wants to with the rebels help, stop all Gems from being 'THE RULERS' and treating Imps like they are the lowest of all humans and that the Gems are the best. She heads into the Gem's world and tries to find out secrets to destroy the Gem government. She does this by working for the Gems as a servant in the Pastures, to gain the secrets about a powerful Gem, Jeremy Harper. She does this by befriending his son Willow Harper. However, Willow falls for Rose and in return, she falls for him. As the story goes on they both run away to which Rose is caught and hanged at the 'Gallows Dance' but not before Willow confesses his love for her. Which puts an end to the 'Gallows Dance' once and for all and everyone will live as one again, no more Imps and Gems. They will simply just be Humans.
But all this won't happen if Violet doesn't complete the story how Rose would of. If Violet does not get Willow to fall for her and follow her to the Gallows. Then they will all be stuck in the book forever and never be able to go home.
So time is ticking for Violet and her friends, they have exactly one week before Rose who's now Violet is due to hang. So Violet had better start learning her lines.
3 ½ – NOT A BAD BOOK / BUT I REALLY LIKED IT