Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Unborn (2009) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
Story: The Unborn starts when young woman Casey (Annable) starts seeing visions and getting warnings about someone wanting to be born, with her best friend Romy (Good) and her boyfriend Mark (Gigandet) Casey starts to investigate and learns that she did in fact have a twin brother who died in the womb.
When Casey turns to a friend of her mother’s she learns about a spirit that is trying to find his way into the real world and she must turn to Rabbi Sendak (Oldman) for answers and a potential cure from the possession.
Thoughts on The Unborn
Characters – Casey is a young woman that seems to have a normal life until one day she starts seeing visions, getting strange messages, she must research her past to protect her future, a past that is filled with pain and loss as well as a secret she would never be prepared for. We do follow Casey for most part of this film, the problem with her character is that we don’t learn anything about her before the unusual starts happening, is she a good or bad person, we learn nothing, it just starts with her being visited. Rabbi Sendak is the man Casey must turn to for help, he understands how the exorcizing would need to be done while offering the basic advice to Casey before stepping in himself. Mark is the boyfriend, that is about all we learn about him, he isn’t as supportive of the supernatural side of the events. Romy is the best friend, she will help on everything Casey is going through in an attempt to save her friend from the evil haunting her.
Performances – Odette Annable is the perfect fit for the leading role, she is a beautiful woman whose life is falling apart, she has a good horror scream and you believe it when she is scared. Gary Oldman, well the guy needs to make money, he does bring class to the role even in his limited role. Cam Gigandet is fine without doing too much Meagan Good gives us the only laughs in the film without being anything great in the supporting role.
Story – The story here follows one young woman that gets starts getting haunted by visions of a young boy and must figure out how to rid herself of this haunting. This story doesn’t take long to start with us going instantly into the first haunting and this pace doesn’t seem to let off, we are constantly going from moment of scares or explanation to what is causing the haunting. This hinders the story because we don’t get a chance to learn anything about the characters we are meant to be supporting, mostly Casey we know nothing about her or what her everyday life is, making it harder to support her. The story follows the horror genre with ease and is saved by a strong twist ending.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from jump scares, well attempted jump scares, most of the horror happens in the dark and is a small child haunting Casey, it does the basics well, though it won’t get the hardcore horror fan to jump. The mystery is more interesting as we must learn the truth about the haunting which goes in direction you wouldn’t see coming.
Settings – The film is set in Chicago which only adds to the horror because of the big city feeling to everything Casey is experience showing that even in the biggest crowd people could suffer possessional activity.
Special Effects – The effects have good moments, we the body folding moments being the highlights of the effects which gives us more towards the horror in the film.
Scene of the Movie – Sofi’s last night.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning anything about who or what these people do in everyday life.
Final Thoughts – This is a basic horror that gets the scares done simply, gives us weakly written characters and could pass the time simply enough.
Overall: Simple late night horror.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/18/the-unborn-2009/
When Casey turns to a friend of her mother’s she learns about a spirit that is trying to find his way into the real world and she must turn to Rabbi Sendak (Oldman) for answers and a potential cure from the possession.
Thoughts on The Unborn
Characters – Casey is a young woman that seems to have a normal life until one day she starts seeing visions, getting strange messages, she must research her past to protect her future, a past that is filled with pain and loss as well as a secret she would never be prepared for. We do follow Casey for most part of this film, the problem with her character is that we don’t learn anything about her before the unusual starts happening, is she a good or bad person, we learn nothing, it just starts with her being visited. Rabbi Sendak is the man Casey must turn to for help, he understands how the exorcizing would need to be done while offering the basic advice to Casey before stepping in himself. Mark is the boyfriend, that is about all we learn about him, he isn’t as supportive of the supernatural side of the events. Romy is the best friend, she will help on everything Casey is going through in an attempt to save her friend from the evil haunting her.
Performances – Odette Annable is the perfect fit for the leading role, she is a beautiful woman whose life is falling apart, she has a good horror scream and you believe it when she is scared. Gary Oldman, well the guy needs to make money, he does bring class to the role even in his limited role. Cam Gigandet is fine without doing too much Meagan Good gives us the only laughs in the film without being anything great in the supporting role.
Story – The story here follows one young woman that gets starts getting haunted by visions of a young boy and must figure out how to rid herself of this haunting. This story doesn’t take long to start with us going instantly into the first haunting and this pace doesn’t seem to let off, we are constantly going from moment of scares or explanation to what is causing the haunting. This hinders the story because we don’t get a chance to learn anything about the characters we are meant to be supporting, mostly Casey we know nothing about her or what her everyday life is, making it harder to support her. The story follows the horror genre with ease and is saved by a strong twist ending.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from jump scares, well attempted jump scares, most of the horror happens in the dark and is a small child haunting Casey, it does the basics well, though it won’t get the hardcore horror fan to jump. The mystery is more interesting as we must learn the truth about the haunting which goes in direction you wouldn’t see coming.
Settings – The film is set in Chicago which only adds to the horror because of the big city feeling to everything Casey is experience showing that even in the biggest crowd people could suffer possessional activity.
Special Effects – The effects have good moments, we the body folding moments being the highlights of the effects which gives us more towards the horror in the film.
Scene of the Movie – Sofi’s last night.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning anything about who or what these people do in everyday life.
Final Thoughts – This is a basic horror that gets the scares done simply, gives us weakly written characters and could pass the time simply enough.
Overall: Simple late night horror.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/18/the-unborn-2009/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Dec 28, 2019
Verdict: Interesting Courtroom Drama
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Yards (2000) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Yards starts when Leo (Wahlberg) gets released from prison, needing to lock down a job his Aunt Kitty (Dunaway) sets him up with her husband Frank Olchin (Caan) who runs a railway construction company in Queens. Without the skills set, he can’t be given a job, but his bag man Willie (Phoenix) who is also Leo’s best friend recruits him to do the dirty work for the company.
When a job goes wrong Willie and Leo both commit an act of violence, only Leo can be identified, he must go on the run while finding everybody trying to hunt him down, trying to expose the truth before it is too late, with only is mother Val (Burstyn) and cousin Erica (Theron) to trust.
Thoughts on The Yards
Characters – Leo is an ex-con that is released from prison, he best friend and Uncle offer him two different jobs, one he isn’t qualified for and one would mean working against the law. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law after a job goes wrong needing to do anything he can to clear his name, while being considered the most wanted man in Queens. Willie is the best friend of Leo, he has made a career being the bag man for Frank which will see him complete the deals to make the business succeed. He ends up leading Leo down the wrong path, when it is him that makes the biggest mistake. Erica is the cousin of Leo and girlfriend to Willie, she is completing her education and gets caught between who to remain loyal towards. Frank runs the corrupt railway construction company that has nearly every political figure in his back pocket. He keeps himself looking clean, letting his men do the dirty work, leading to him being forced into a difficult decision. Val is the mother of Leo that has always tried to give him everything he could give him in life, left to suffer when he gets blamed for the crimes.
Performances – Mark Wahlberg is strong in the leading role, he gives us a performance that shows his regret, confusion and worries about the future he is meant to have once out of prison. Joaquin Phoenix brings us a performance which shows us just how he can make us hate a character. Charlize Theron in the supporting role shows us everything she needs to without getting the same spotlight as the rest of the cast, while James Caan works in the corrupt businessman role with ease. The rest of the cast are solid without doing anything outside the comfort zones.
Story – The story here takes us into the world of corruption within the Queens railway service construction company that pays off to get jobs after doing their own dirty work to make others look worse, we follow one ex-con being placed into this world who sees the bad only to become the prime suspect in the investigation of a murder. The story does try to keep us guessing to what will happen and who Leo could trust only for it to become to run of mill in the genre to make it new or original. It might be loosely based on a real case, it however doesn’t offer enough to make things feel like we could see too much going on, rather than focusing on the cover up itself.
Crime/Romance – The crime world we enter is the political corruption of construction which shows us how quickly people can turn on each other without doubt. The romance side of this story takes a back burner which is here to show how difficult of a position Erica is put into.
Settings – The film is set in Queen which shows us how the community will come together to work together or turn on somebody.
Scene of the Movie – The incident.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The story is overly generic.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting crime story that does everything by the book without doing anything overly special.
Overall: Simple crime film.
When a job goes wrong Willie and Leo both commit an act of violence, only Leo can be identified, he must go on the run while finding everybody trying to hunt him down, trying to expose the truth before it is too late, with only is mother Val (Burstyn) and cousin Erica (Theron) to trust.
Thoughts on The Yards
Characters – Leo is an ex-con that is released from prison, he best friend and Uncle offer him two different jobs, one he isn’t qualified for and one would mean working against the law. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law after a job goes wrong needing to do anything he can to clear his name, while being considered the most wanted man in Queens. Willie is the best friend of Leo, he has made a career being the bag man for Frank which will see him complete the deals to make the business succeed. He ends up leading Leo down the wrong path, when it is him that makes the biggest mistake. Erica is the cousin of Leo and girlfriend to Willie, she is completing her education and gets caught between who to remain loyal towards. Frank runs the corrupt railway construction company that has nearly every political figure in his back pocket. He keeps himself looking clean, letting his men do the dirty work, leading to him being forced into a difficult decision. Val is the mother of Leo that has always tried to give him everything he could give him in life, left to suffer when he gets blamed for the crimes.
Performances – Mark Wahlberg is strong in the leading role, he gives us a performance that shows his regret, confusion and worries about the future he is meant to have once out of prison. Joaquin Phoenix brings us a performance which shows us just how he can make us hate a character. Charlize Theron in the supporting role shows us everything she needs to without getting the same spotlight as the rest of the cast, while James Caan works in the corrupt businessman role with ease. The rest of the cast are solid without doing anything outside the comfort zones.
Story – The story here takes us into the world of corruption within the Queens railway service construction company that pays off to get jobs after doing their own dirty work to make others look worse, we follow one ex-con being placed into this world who sees the bad only to become the prime suspect in the investigation of a murder. The story does try to keep us guessing to what will happen and who Leo could trust only for it to become to run of mill in the genre to make it new or original. It might be loosely based on a real case, it however doesn’t offer enough to make things feel like we could see too much going on, rather than focusing on the cover up itself.
Crime/Romance – The crime world we enter is the political corruption of construction which shows us how quickly people can turn on each other without doubt. The romance side of this story takes a back burner which is here to show how difficult of a position Erica is put into.
Settings – The film is set in Queen which shows us how the community will come together to work together or turn on somebody.
Scene of the Movie – The incident.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The story is overly generic.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting crime story that does everything by the book without doing anything overly special.
Overall: Simple crime film.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Wanna Get Lucky? (Lucky O'Toole #1) in Books
Nov 28, 2019
Lucky O'Toole is head of Customer Relations at the splendidly over-the-top Babylon Hotel and Casino complex in Las Vegas. That means she spends all of her time dealing with the gamblers, drunks and high maintenance high rollers as well as dealing with any potential bad publicity. When a cocktail waitress falls out of one of their helicopters and is headline news it is a complication Lucky doesn't need, but as she starts to deal with this latest problem it soon becomes clear it may not have been an accident. Determined to get to the bottom of what is going on she plunges into the seedy world of Vegas behind the bright lights. As if this isn't enough her long-neglected love life starts adding complications all of its own. With the adult film awards and a convention for swingers about to hit the hotel she certainly has her hands full.
This book has it all. It is very funny (and yes I did laugh out loud several times and insist on reading passages out to my wife) with Lucky's self-deprecating humour and sharp sarcastic streak balanced off against the odd ball events that happen that could only be considered routine in Las Vegas. Coonts has a terrifically light touch with both dialogue and prose. I particularly liked the way lucky didn't just answer her phone but 'pushes to talk'. That always made me smile.
There is also a good thriller plot around the fall from the helicopter and who might be responsible and for what reason. Lucky has good reason to suspect everyone, even those she feels she ought to trust as the plot goes to the heart of the power play behind the big casino resorts. Although most of the pieces are in place and it's pretty clear what has happened by just over half way through, it's still fun seeing Lucky use all her contacts and knowledge to round everything up to a satisfying conclusion.
Romance is also a big theme, with Lucky being thrown into a quandary over her love life and friendships. She struggles with this between trying to sort out the main plot line and as the book goes on it becomes more important both to her and the reader, but again Coonts deals with this well and at no point does the narrative bog down in any kind of over-romantic slush but manages to keep everything light but believable.
There is also some personal background for Lucky to deal with, and also her complicated relationship with her mother (who runs an out of town brothel) thrown into the mix to keep everything lively. This is certainly not a boring read.
Despite some of the obvious themes - Lucky's romantic incidents, her mother running a brothel, the adult movie stars and the swingers convention - there is nothing salacious or titillating. Lucky has essentially seen it all before and is far to smart to do anything other than make sardonic comments.
The characterisation is superb. Lucky is a brilliant character, very capable and with her acerbic wit very much to the fore. The supporting cast are no less well drawn, any of them could have carried a book of their own. Tall Texan security man Paxton Dane, occasionally baffled by the detail of how Las Vegas works is a good foil for Lucky as is her best friend Teddie, a female impersonator who looks better in her clothes than she does. The inexperienced Detective Romeo is gifted the arrest by Lucky but doesn't ever feel like he is just a stooge. There are too many more to mention here but each one - staff, guests or anyone else that appears - you get the impression that you are only seeing the smallest snapshot of their larger life.
There are some coincidences and luck in getting the plots to work out but after all, this is Vegas. There is too much fun to be had reading this book to worry about every detail.
Overall this is a terrific book and one that would appeal to anyone who likes a sassy, sharp and sexy story set in the seedy and seamy world of the Strip.
This book has it all. It is very funny (and yes I did laugh out loud several times and insist on reading passages out to my wife) with Lucky's self-deprecating humour and sharp sarcastic streak balanced off against the odd ball events that happen that could only be considered routine in Las Vegas. Coonts has a terrifically light touch with both dialogue and prose. I particularly liked the way lucky didn't just answer her phone but 'pushes to talk'. That always made me smile.
There is also a good thriller plot around the fall from the helicopter and who might be responsible and for what reason. Lucky has good reason to suspect everyone, even those she feels she ought to trust as the plot goes to the heart of the power play behind the big casino resorts. Although most of the pieces are in place and it's pretty clear what has happened by just over half way through, it's still fun seeing Lucky use all her contacts and knowledge to round everything up to a satisfying conclusion.
Romance is also a big theme, with Lucky being thrown into a quandary over her love life and friendships. She struggles with this between trying to sort out the main plot line and as the book goes on it becomes more important both to her and the reader, but again Coonts deals with this well and at no point does the narrative bog down in any kind of over-romantic slush but manages to keep everything light but believable.
There is also some personal background for Lucky to deal with, and also her complicated relationship with her mother (who runs an out of town brothel) thrown into the mix to keep everything lively. This is certainly not a boring read.
Despite some of the obvious themes - Lucky's romantic incidents, her mother running a brothel, the adult movie stars and the swingers convention - there is nothing salacious or titillating. Lucky has essentially seen it all before and is far to smart to do anything other than make sardonic comments.
The characterisation is superb. Lucky is a brilliant character, very capable and with her acerbic wit very much to the fore. The supporting cast are no less well drawn, any of them could have carried a book of their own. Tall Texan security man Paxton Dane, occasionally baffled by the detail of how Las Vegas works is a good foil for Lucky as is her best friend Teddie, a female impersonator who looks better in her clothes than she does. The inexperienced Detective Romeo is gifted the arrest by Lucky but doesn't ever feel like he is just a stooge. There are too many more to mention here but each one - staff, guests or anyone else that appears - you get the impression that you are only seeing the smallest snapshot of their larger life.
There are some coincidences and luck in getting the plots to work out but after all, this is Vegas. There is too much fun to be had reading this book to worry about every detail.
Overall this is a terrific book and one that would appeal to anyone who likes a sassy, sharp and sexy story set in the seedy and seamy world of the Strip.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Ambrose Beacon (The Solas Prophecy, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted at <a title="The Ambrose Beacon by Alena Gouveia" href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/11/review-the-ambrose-beacon-by-alena-gouveia.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts<a/>
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste, along with pictures and captions
<i><b>Disclaimer:</b> Review copy provided by author for review</i>
Let me blunt about The Ambrose Beacon: it was boring. It also became the third unfortunate book that lands into my DNF list and the first fantasy book oh wait. Not exactly the first... does the Caster Chronicles count as Fantasy, or does it count as Paranormal? If it counts as paranormal, then The Ambrose Beacon became the unfortunate first fantasy book I didn't finish.
So essentially, I give fair warning: I rated and reviewed it based on what I could manage to read so far. Which, I think I was being a bit lenient about, but I didn't throw the book against the wall, so it certainly didn't deserve a lower rating.
Now allow me to tell why I found it boring, and my general thoughts on it:
Larry and Jerry. They sound so similar (they rhyme as well), that I was befuddled and mistakenly read Jerry as Larry and vice-versa when it was really the other way around. They're best friends and one of them is the main character. How confusing can that get?
The characters don't seem to be in depth. While I get the why for Harper and Arianna, the other characters simply seem virtually pancake-like (no offense). Add to the fact that it suddenly switches POVs without some sort of sign. One minute it's Cole, the next? Dinah, Jerry, Harper, Vaughn, etc. >_<
Fairies. Probably one of my favorite things to read about, and it's not because they're sparkly and pretty and whatnot. But I was actually interested in Gouveia's take on fairies when the word was
mentioned in the earliest parts of the book.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be well written, nor realistic. I mean, doing magic in public. In front of human eyewitnesses. That doesn't sound like the typical faery to me that tries to not let the human world find out about them because then it's all, "IT'S THE APOCALYPSE. I must be seeing things," or maybe, "HOLY MONKEYS. FAIRIES EXIST" *rubs eyes to make sure it's not an illusion.* But the fairies here seem like a bounce off of Fantastic Four (even though I haven't watched the movie). More like superheroes than the sidhe.
The same thing is repeated, but in different variations. Oh hooray. Demons, demons and more demons. Same kind of demon, which isn't a problem for me, but the very fact that they tend to be doing the same thing over and over and over again throughout the entire book, which is the main reason why I stopped (I really did stop at exactly 50%). There's not a lot going on, although maybe if I had the time and gave the book further chances, there might be other things going on rather than "OMG, THERE'S A DEMON THAT WANTS MY HEAD ON A PLATTER. RUN." (or in the case here, it's fight to the death.)
Generally I like fantasy. I love the creative worlds and character and creatures made up that gives me a free ticket to travel okay, that applies to any book really without having to move a single inch, and the very fact that you can't exactly buy a plane ticket to the area in the first place. Someone tell me if we can really buy a plane ticket to the Faery Realms if you so disagree on that fact. Of course... I wouldn't exactly try and mess with fairies in the first place.
I tried liking the story. I thought first thought it was because of reading The Jungle, which is dreadfully boring, and it may have influenced my thoughts on this one. Then I read Allegiant for awhile and came back to it. It didn't work out well either (and Allegiant didn't bore me).
So simply put, The Ambrose Beacon is not really my cup of tea.
*eats a biscuit and avoids unsweetened tea*
I really hate giving bad reviews. Especially DNFs.
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste, along with pictures and captions
<i><b>Disclaimer:</b> Review copy provided by author for review</i>
Let me blunt about The Ambrose Beacon: it was boring. It also became the third unfortunate book that lands into my DNF list and the first fantasy book oh wait. Not exactly the first... does the Caster Chronicles count as Fantasy, or does it count as Paranormal? If it counts as paranormal, then The Ambrose Beacon became the unfortunate first fantasy book I didn't finish.
So essentially, I give fair warning: I rated and reviewed it based on what I could manage to read so far. Which, I think I was being a bit lenient about, but I didn't throw the book against the wall, so it certainly didn't deserve a lower rating.
Now allow me to tell why I found it boring, and my general thoughts on it:
Larry and Jerry. They sound so similar (they rhyme as well), that I was befuddled and mistakenly read Jerry as Larry and vice-versa when it was really the other way around. They're best friends and one of them is the main character. How confusing can that get?
The characters don't seem to be in depth. While I get the why for Harper and Arianna, the other characters simply seem virtually pancake-like (no offense). Add to the fact that it suddenly switches POVs without some sort of sign. One minute it's Cole, the next? Dinah, Jerry, Harper, Vaughn, etc. >_<
Fairies. Probably one of my favorite things to read about, and it's not because they're sparkly and pretty and whatnot. But I was actually interested in Gouveia's take on fairies when the word was
mentioned in the earliest parts of the book.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be well written, nor realistic. I mean, doing magic in public. In front of human eyewitnesses. That doesn't sound like the typical faery to me that tries to not let the human world find out about them because then it's all, "IT'S THE APOCALYPSE. I must be seeing things," or maybe, "HOLY MONKEYS. FAIRIES EXIST" *rubs eyes to make sure it's not an illusion.* But the fairies here seem like a bounce off of Fantastic Four (even though I haven't watched the movie). More like superheroes than the sidhe.
The same thing is repeated, but in different variations. Oh hooray. Demons, demons and more demons. Same kind of demon, which isn't a problem for me, but the very fact that they tend to be doing the same thing over and over and over again throughout the entire book, which is the main reason why I stopped (I really did stop at exactly 50%). There's not a lot going on, although maybe if I had the time and gave the book further chances, there might be other things going on rather than "OMG, THERE'S A DEMON THAT WANTS MY HEAD ON A PLATTER. RUN." (or in the case here, it's fight to the death.)
Generally I like fantasy. I love the creative worlds and character and creatures made up that gives me a free ticket to travel okay, that applies to any book really without having to move a single inch, and the very fact that you can't exactly buy a plane ticket to the area in the first place. Someone tell me if we can really buy a plane ticket to the Faery Realms if you so disagree on that fact. Of course... I wouldn't exactly try and mess with fairies in the first place.
I tried liking the story. I thought first thought it was because of reading The Jungle, which is dreadfully boring, and it may have influenced my thoughts on this one. Then I read Allegiant for awhile and came back to it. It didn't work out well either (and Allegiant didn't bore me).
So simply put, The Ambrose Beacon is not really my cup of tea.
*eats a biscuit and avoids unsweetened tea*
I really hate giving bad reviews. Especially DNFs.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jack the Giant Slayer (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The timeless children’s tale of Jack and the Beanstalk gets a high-tech update in the new film Jack the Giant Slayer. Directed by Bryan Singer, the new version mixes in special effects with romance, action, and humor to provide a refreshing update of a fairytale that should appeal to adults and children alike. Nicholas Hoult stars as Jack, a simple farmer who’s raised by his uncle after the passing of his father. As a boy, Jack enjoyed the tales of long ago, especially those of the time when giants came down from the sky and attacked the earth before being thwarted by King Eric and his magical crown.
One day while in town to sell a cart and horse and earn much-needed funds for his uncle, Jack has a chance encounter with Princess Isabelle, (Eleanor Tomlinson), which leaves Jack’s starstruck. Unbeknownst to Jack and Isabelle, there is a dastardly plot afoot as the evil Count Roderick (Stanley Tucci), plots to rule the land once he has married Isabelle. The fact that the Princess has no interest in marrying Roderick is of little interest to the King (Ian McShane), as he is anxious to provide continuity for his kingdom following the loss of his wife. While Isabelle pleads her case with her father, Jack ends up in possession of beans which, he’s told, are magical.
Upon seeing what Jack has returned with, his uncle storms off into the night hoping to sell some of Jack’s remaining family possessions in order to make the money Jack had failed to acquire. While alone, Jack again encounters the Princess, who has decided to run away rather than be forced into a marriage she does not want. As if on cue, one of the magic beans that Jack had obtained earlier becomes wet in the rain storm and whisks the cottage and Princess into the heavens high above. The King and his men send a group of guards, under the leadership of Elmont (Ewan McGregor), to ascend the beanstalk and return the Princess. Jack and Roderick also accompany the soldiers, each with their own agenda.
Upon scaling the massive stalk, the group soon discovers that they are in the realm of giants long thought to be the stuff of legends. Complications arise which forces Jack to take command of the very perilous situation and soon finds himself battling not just to save the Princess but also for the very survival of the kingdom and surrounding world.
The film has some nice moments and while the CGI stuff may be a bit childish to some, it is important to remember that this is a fairytale and as such you are not going to see a lot of character depth and intricate plot twists. Instead, the film relies on a very likable cast made up of matinée quality villains and bad guys and some very nice visual effects to convey its simple but effective formula. Hoult follows up his leading role in “Warm Bodies” effectively and with several high-profile projects in the near future, seems poised to be a leading man to keep an eye on. The supporting cast does a very good job, especially McGregor and McShane who bring a gleeful energy to their roles as does Tucci as a villain who has everything short of the twirling mustache and black hat.
The 3-D offered some very good moments in the film and really enhanced some of the battle scenes in the film. Parents with younger children may want to note that there are some elements that may be frightening to very young children but for the most part this is a kid’s film. That being said, I was surprised how much I enjoyed the movie. It’s certainly better than I expected and was, in my opinion, the best live-action retelling of fairytale in recent memory. We did get a chance to review the film in the IMAX format which certainly allowed for the impressive visuals of the film to have an even greater impact. If you’ve ever been a fan of the story then you definitely will want to take a trip up the beanstalk for this nostalgic, yet highly enjoyable, interpretation of the beloved classic.
One day while in town to sell a cart and horse and earn much-needed funds for his uncle, Jack has a chance encounter with Princess Isabelle, (Eleanor Tomlinson), which leaves Jack’s starstruck. Unbeknownst to Jack and Isabelle, there is a dastardly plot afoot as the evil Count Roderick (Stanley Tucci), plots to rule the land once he has married Isabelle. The fact that the Princess has no interest in marrying Roderick is of little interest to the King (Ian McShane), as he is anxious to provide continuity for his kingdom following the loss of his wife. While Isabelle pleads her case with her father, Jack ends up in possession of beans which, he’s told, are magical.
Upon seeing what Jack has returned with, his uncle storms off into the night hoping to sell some of Jack’s remaining family possessions in order to make the money Jack had failed to acquire. While alone, Jack again encounters the Princess, who has decided to run away rather than be forced into a marriage she does not want. As if on cue, one of the magic beans that Jack had obtained earlier becomes wet in the rain storm and whisks the cottage and Princess into the heavens high above. The King and his men send a group of guards, under the leadership of Elmont (Ewan McGregor), to ascend the beanstalk and return the Princess. Jack and Roderick also accompany the soldiers, each with their own agenda.
Upon scaling the massive stalk, the group soon discovers that they are in the realm of giants long thought to be the stuff of legends. Complications arise which forces Jack to take command of the very perilous situation and soon finds himself battling not just to save the Princess but also for the very survival of the kingdom and surrounding world.
The film has some nice moments and while the CGI stuff may be a bit childish to some, it is important to remember that this is a fairytale and as such you are not going to see a lot of character depth and intricate plot twists. Instead, the film relies on a very likable cast made up of matinée quality villains and bad guys and some very nice visual effects to convey its simple but effective formula. Hoult follows up his leading role in “Warm Bodies” effectively and with several high-profile projects in the near future, seems poised to be a leading man to keep an eye on. The supporting cast does a very good job, especially McGregor and McShane who bring a gleeful energy to their roles as does Tucci as a villain who has everything short of the twirling mustache and black hat.
The 3-D offered some very good moments in the film and really enhanced some of the battle scenes in the film. Parents with younger children may want to note that there are some elements that may be frightening to very young children but for the most part this is a kid’s film. That being said, I was surprised how much I enjoyed the movie. It’s certainly better than I expected and was, in my opinion, the best live-action retelling of fairytale in recent memory. We did get a chance to review the film in the IMAX format which certainly allowed for the impressive visuals of the film to have an even greater impact. If you’ve ever been a fan of the story then you definitely will want to take a trip up the beanstalk for this nostalgic, yet highly enjoyable, interpretation of the beloved classic.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Order in TV
Jul 6, 2020 (Updated Jul 6, 2020)
Don't Call Them Witches - 7/10
The Order is a 2019 supernatural horror/drama tv series created by Dennis Heaton and a team of writers including: Dennis Heaton, Shelley Eriksen, Rachel Langer, Jennica Harper, Penny Gummerson and Jason Filiatrault. The show was produced by Nomadic Pictures with producers Petros Danabassis, Jay Daniel Beechinor, and Morris Chapdelaine and released on Netflix in March. The shows stars Jake Manley, Sarah Grey, Matt Frewer, and Max Martini.
Thrust into a world of magic and monsters (werewolves), Jack Morten (Jake Manley) must pledge himself to a secret society so that he can avenge the death of his mother by their leader, Edward Coventry (Max Martini). His only family is his grandfather, "Pops" (Matt Frewer), the genius behind their plan for him to infiltrate the order and learn what he can to bring them down from the inside. Things go from bad to worse as he uncovers The Hermetic Order of the Blue Rose are practitioners of magic and someone or something is killing their pledges on campus. And more complications arise as he becomes enamoured with a higher ranking member Alyssa Drake (Sarah Grey) and a group of Knights whose mission is to stop evil magic users.
The Order is a decent show. I liked it alot but it was hard for me to get behind. It definitely has a lot of flaws and I can see a lot of people (like critics) tearing this show apart. That being said, I can't believe it has 100% on rotten tomatoes at this point or that it has been renewed for a second season. It was pretty slow building to me especially because I thought it was only going to be a secret society type show like the movie The Skulls but with a werewolf angle to it. I was very surprised when it was more about a magic secret society and later had a werewolf element to it. What I really didn't care for so much was the love theme to it that made me want to compare it to Twilight. You'll know what I'm talking about if you give it a chance. I really wanted to give this show a 6. There was a lot to hate in this show but it did get better towards the end. One thing the dialogue was full of cussing, which I didn't mind at all but it felt very amateurish. It made me laugh a lot but it also made me feel like the writers were in high school still. And I believe it's the main reason for the TV-MA rating. Which is another complaint I had. I don't think that for a rated TV-MA show, particularly a horror one, did they have enough violence, blood or gore. It felt very watered down to me in those respects. To me it seems like it was a cool idea, they had good actors who suffered from poor script and dialogue with a decent enough plot but a director(s) who were going for more of a Twilight vibe. As it gets farther into it did get better but barely got a 7 from me. As I write this I'm still contemplating whether to change my rating. It did do somethings quite well. They didn't mess up on the werewolves and even did them in a unique way and I appreciated the world building and
lore that they brought to them. Even the way they portrayed magic in the series was well done. I also generally liked the second half of the seasons' story arc and plot. I give this show a 7/10. I don't recommend it to anyone unless you were a big fan of the Twilight films or if you are just someone who watches anything with magic or werewolves.
Thrust into a world of magic and monsters (werewolves), Jack Morten (Jake Manley) must pledge himself to a secret society so that he can avenge the death of his mother by their leader, Edward Coventry (Max Martini). His only family is his grandfather, "Pops" (Matt Frewer), the genius behind their plan for him to infiltrate the order and learn what he can to bring them down from the inside. Things go from bad to worse as he uncovers The Hermetic Order of the Blue Rose are practitioners of magic and someone or something is killing their pledges on campus. And more complications arise as he becomes enamoured with a higher ranking member Alyssa Drake (Sarah Grey) and a group of Knights whose mission is to stop evil magic users.
The Order is a decent show. I liked it alot but it was hard for me to get behind. It definitely has a lot of flaws and I can see a lot of people (like critics) tearing this show apart. That being said, I can't believe it has 100% on rotten tomatoes at this point or that it has been renewed for a second season. It was pretty slow building to me especially because I thought it was only going to be a secret society type show like the movie The Skulls but with a werewolf angle to it. I was very surprised when it was more about a magic secret society and later had a werewolf element to it. What I really didn't care for so much was the love theme to it that made me want to compare it to Twilight. You'll know what I'm talking about if you give it a chance. I really wanted to give this show a 6. There was a lot to hate in this show but it did get better towards the end. One thing the dialogue was full of cussing, which I didn't mind at all but it felt very amateurish. It made me laugh a lot but it also made me feel like the writers were in high school still. And I believe it's the main reason for the TV-MA rating. Which is another complaint I had. I don't think that for a rated TV-MA show, particularly a horror one, did they have enough violence, blood or gore. It felt very watered down to me in those respects. To me it seems like it was a cool idea, they had good actors who suffered from poor script and dialogue with a decent enough plot but a director(s) who were going for more of a Twilight vibe. As it gets farther into it did get better but barely got a 7 from me. As I write this I'm still contemplating whether to change my rating. It did do somethings quite well. They didn't mess up on the werewolves and even did them in a unique way and I appreciated the world building and
lore that they brought to them. Even the way they portrayed magic in the series was well done. I also generally liked the second half of the seasons' story arc and plot. I give this show a 7/10. I don't recommend it to anyone unless you were a big fan of the Twilight films or if you are just someone who watches anything with magic or werewolves.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Home Alone (1990) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
It's not Christmas until Kevin says "I've made my family disappear." In fact, it's probably one of the few that I actively watch every year, and it's one of two that I'll happily watch at any time of the year. (The other being Die Hard... don't get on my case, you know it's a Christmas film.)
On December 7th Home Alone turned 28 in the UK. 1990... just wow. I'm feeling old enough without films I grew up with being called classics.
If you haven't considered your own Home Alone plan... well, what have you been doing with your life?! As a tip, if you already have a zombie apocalypse plan in place then it's very easily adapted, you just need a little less lethal force. And it's probably best for me to remind you not to actually try this at home, because I'm not convinced that Harry and Marv would have survived. (And if we take the results from Better Watch Out then you're probably looking at some kind of murder charge.)
In December they were showing Home Alone a few times at Cineworld so it would have been rude not to go at least once to see it. I'm really getting into the classic releases on the big screen, it's so much fun. The show I picked was basically populated by adults, just two children brought along by their parents. We were all roaring with laughter, the comedy never gets old.
The music of Home Alone is instantly recognisable and yet I always forget that it's one of John Williams' epic creations. You can't hear it without thinking of the specific scene in the film it relates to, and it's certainly influences a lot of films since. Something that again I hadn't really noticed until I watched the Christmas horror film, Secret Santa (review coming soon).
It always fills me with questions though... Do all Americans have telephones with cords that are about 20 feet long? How did Buzz manage to shove that entire pizza slice in his mouth? Why did Leslie ever marry Frank? Why is Jimmy in the shop so over enthusiastic? How does Kevin manage to create all his traps in such a short amount of time? And who on Earth leaves their house that tidy when they're leaving for holiday? Especially when you consider they left in such a hurry!
The idea is such a fun one, I can see why it's so popular all this time later. Watching it more and more though you do realise that Culkin's acting was pretty bad, but that just adds to its charm.
Watching it with a group of people who already love the film really made it a better viewing. We all laughed at the amazing prat falls from Joe Pesci on the ice and the walls of the cinema caved in slightly as we all took a sharp intake of breath as Marv stood on that nail. It's genuinely more fun to roar with laughter with other fans.
It's sad to think that Home Alone could never happen these days. (Although Google did bring us an advert that gave us a peak at what might happen. I've put the video at the end of the post.) Kevin probably has several smart devices that they could contact or track, the house would also likely be equipped with state of the art surveillance and alarm systems that would have alerted someone to movement and doors opening. On the flip side though it's quite fun to think about what sort of traps Kevin could be creating with the wonders of modern technology. I'd say lets get a petition going to see that happen but while Home Alone 4 was passable I don't think we really need any more of them.
What you should do
This should be in everyone's Christmas film rotation. If you don't watch it at least once a year... well... *shakes head*.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Everyone needs those quick inventing skills, but I'm actually going to go with Kevin's other superpower... his amazing ability to make epic ice cream sundaes.
On December 7th Home Alone turned 28 in the UK. 1990... just wow. I'm feeling old enough without films I grew up with being called classics.
If you haven't considered your own Home Alone plan... well, what have you been doing with your life?! As a tip, if you already have a zombie apocalypse plan in place then it's very easily adapted, you just need a little less lethal force. And it's probably best for me to remind you not to actually try this at home, because I'm not convinced that Harry and Marv would have survived. (And if we take the results from Better Watch Out then you're probably looking at some kind of murder charge.)
In December they were showing Home Alone a few times at Cineworld so it would have been rude not to go at least once to see it. I'm really getting into the classic releases on the big screen, it's so much fun. The show I picked was basically populated by adults, just two children brought along by their parents. We were all roaring with laughter, the comedy never gets old.
The music of Home Alone is instantly recognisable and yet I always forget that it's one of John Williams' epic creations. You can't hear it without thinking of the specific scene in the film it relates to, and it's certainly influences a lot of films since. Something that again I hadn't really noticed until I watched the Christmas horror film, Secret Santa (review coming soon).
It always fills me with questions though... Do all Americans have telephones with cords that are about 20 feet long? How did Buzz manage to shove that entire pizza slice in his mouth? Why did Leslie ever marry Frank? Why is Jimmy in the shop so over enthusiastic? How does Kevin manage to create all his traps in such a short amount of time? And who on Earth leaves their house that tidy when they're leaving for holiday? Especially when you consider they left in such a hurry!
The idea is such a fun one, I can see why it's so popular all this time later. Watching it more and more though you do realise that Culkin's acting was pretty bad, but that just adds to its charm.
Watching it with a group of people who already love the film really made it a better viewing. We all laughed at the amazing prat falls from Joe Pesci on the ice and the walls of the cinema caved in slightly as we all took a sharp intake of breath as Marv stood on that nail. It's genuinely more fun to roar with laughter with other fans.
It's sad to think that Home Alone could never happen these days. (Although Google did bring us an advert that gave us a peak at what might happen. I've put the video at the end of the post.) Kevin probably has several smart devices that they could contact or track, the house would also likely be equipped with state of the art surveillance and alarm systems that would have alerted someone to movement and doors opening. On the flip side though it's quite fun to think about what sort of traps Kevin could be creating with the wonders of modern technology. I'd say lets get a petition going to see that happen but while Home Alone 4 was passable I don't think we really need any more of them.
What you should do
This should be in everyone's Christmas film rotation. If you don't watch it at least once a year... well... *shakes head*.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Everyone needs those quick inventing skills, but I'm actually going to go with Kevin's other superpower... his amazing ability to make epic ice cream sundaes.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Is the third time a charm for Mr. Butler's action thriller series?
Gerard Butler returns as Secret Service agent Mike Banning in the third entry of the "Fallen" series, picking up where London Has Fallen left off.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated I, Tonya (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Some Darwin award winners.
Man, I personally found this one to be an exceedingly uncomfortable watch.
“I, Tonya” is cleverly filmed as a pseudo-documentary, featuring re-enactments of the real-life interviews of most of the participants in this true-life drama. I recently bitterly criticised some film critics for spoiling the story of Donald Crowhurst, the subject of the recent “The Mercy”. But I was about to do exactly the same here, *assuming* that you all know the lurid tale of the rivalry between Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan that led up to an ‘event’ in 1994 that shocked the world. And of course, many of you younger folk don’t know: case in point my 26 year old son who I went to see this with, and who went into the story blissfully blind of the drama about to unfold. So I will try to keep this review spoiler-free.
Playing Tonya from a (not very credible!) 15 years old to her mid-20’s is Margot Robbie (“The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Suicide Squad”) in what is a BAFTA and Oscar nominated performance. And for good reason: the performance is raw, visceral and disturbing in reflecting a victim who still thinks everything at heart is her own fault.
Also BAFTA and Oscar nominated is Allison Janney (“The Girl on the Train”) as Tonya’s obnoxious chain-smoking mother LaVona. Janney is truly terrifying as the mother who abuses her daughter both physically and mentally in a driven attempt to make her the best ice-skater in the world.
Victims seem to attract abusers, and Tonya is surrounded by people who are just plain bad for her: notably her husband Jeff (Sebastian Stan, “The Martian”, “Captain America: Winter Soldier”) and his slimy and pitifully self-deluded friend Shawn (Paul Walter Hauser). The end credits video footage of the real-life players show just how well these parts were cast.
Why so uncomfortable to watch? There is a significant degree of domestic abuse featured in the film, both in terms of LaVona on her child and Jeff on his wife. This is something I abhor in general, having been brought up to believe it is never EVER acceptable to lay a hand on a woman. To have these cowardly individuals sensationalised in the movie I found to be really upsetting. I strongly feel, for this reason alone, that the film should have had an 18 certificate. Violence in film should be related to the context as well as the severity. (Note that this is in stark contrast to my comments of recent BBFC decisions to make “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” 15-certificates when I believe they should have been 12A).
The film is executed extremely well, with 4:3 framing for the staged interviews, and ice skating scenes that seamlessly cut between the professional clearly doing the stunts and Robbie (who must also be a half decent skater too). The soundtrack is nicely littered – “Guardians of the Galaxy” style – with classic hits of the early 90’s.
To think that this story actually unfolded in this way is nothing short of astounding… but it did! There is an astonishing video clip here (#spoilers) of the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of, the Kerrigan incident. I came out of the film with a deep feeling of sadness for Harding (at least, as portrayed) and utter disgust that the villains of this piece could be a) so cruel and out of control and b) so utterly stupid. These are individuals who really should have been sterilised to stop them polluting the gene pool any further.
Written by Steven Rogers (“Stepmom”) and directed by Australian Craig Gillespie, there is no doubting that this is a powerful film: played to an absolutely silent and gripped Saturday night cinema audience. And it has truly dynamite performances from Allison Janney and Margot Robbie. But be warned that you’ll need a strong stomach to go and see it without being affected by it afterwards. It’s a mental keeper.
“I, Tonya” is cleverly filmed as a pseudo-documentary, featuring re-enactments of the real-life interviews of most of the participants in this true-life drama. I recently bitterly criticised some film critics for spoiling the story of Donald Crowhurst, the subject of the recent “The Mercy”. But I was about to do exactly the same here, *assuming* that you all know the lurid tale of the rivalry between Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan that led up to an ‘event’ in 1994 that shocked the world. And of course, many of you younger folk don’t know: case in point my 26 year old son who I went to see this with, and who went into the story blissfully blind of the drama about to unfold. So I will try to keep this review spoiler-free.
Playing Tonya from a (not very credible!) 15 years old to her mid-20’s is Margot Robbie (“The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Suicide Squad”) in what is a BAFTA and Oscar nominated performance. And for good reason: the performance is raw, visceral and disturbing in reflecting a victim who still thinks everything at heart is her own fault.
Also BAFTA and Oscar nominated is Allison Janney (“The Girl on the Train”) as Tonya’s obnoxious chain-smoking mother LaVona. Janney is truly terrifying as the mother who abuses her daughter both physically and mentally in a driven attempt to make her the best ice-skater in the world.
Victims seem to attract abusers, and Tonya is surrounded by people who are just plain bad for her: notably her husband Jeff (Sebastian Stan, “The Martian”, “Captain America: Winter Soldier”) and his slimy and pitifully self-deluded friend Shawn (Paul Walter Hauser). The end credits video footage of the real-life players show just how well these parts were cast.
Why so uncomfortable to watch? There is a significant degree of domestic abuse featured in the film, both in terms of LaVona on her child and Jeff on his wife. This is something I abhor in general, having been brought up to believe it is never EVER acceptable to lay a hand on a woman. To have these cowardly individuals sensationalised in the movie I found to be really upsetting. I strongly feel, for this reason alone, that the film should have had an 18 certificate. Violence in film should be related to the context as well as the severity. (Note that this is in stark contrast to my comments of recent BBFC decisions to make “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” 15-certificates when I believe they should have been 12A).
The film is executed extremely well, with 4:3 framing for the staged interviews, and ice skating scenes that seamlessly cut between the professional clearly doing the stunts and Robbie (who must also be a half decent skater too). The soundtrack is nicely littered – “Guardians of the Galaxy” style – with classic hits of the early 90’s.
To think that this story actually unfolded in this way is nothing short of astounding… but it did! There is an astonishing video clip here (#spoilers) of the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of, the Kerrigan incident. I came out of the film with a deep feeling of sadness for Harding (at least, as portrayed) and utter disgust that the villains of this piece could be a) so cruel and out of control and b) so utterly stupid. These are individuals who really should have been sterilised to stop them polluting the gene pool any further.
Written by Steven Rogers (“Stepmom”) and directed by Australian Craig Gillespie, there is no doubting that this is a powerful film: played to an absolutely silent and gripped Saturday night cinema audience. And it has truly dynamite performances from Allison Janney and Margot Robbie. But be warned that you’ll need a strong stomach to go and see it without being affected by it afterwards. It’s a mental keeper.