Search
Search results
Ross (3284 KP) rated Blood of Assassins in Books
Feb 12, 2018
I can't quite see what the fuss is all about
*** Disclosure: I received an advance copy of this book from NetGalley in return for an honest review ***
I read Blood of Assassins straight on the back of Age of Assassins, which I thought was OK.
Here we are back with Girton Club-Foot and his assassin master 5 years after the conclusion of the first book. Having travelled as mercenaries during this time, Girton has stopped training with the sword and picked up a warhammer instead. The book opens with he and his master seeing off some foreign assassins of their own, his master becoming poisoned in the conflict.
The Tired Lands has deteriorated over this time with Girton's three fellow squires all vying to become king, resulting in a long war that has taken its toll on the land and its people.
Girton becomes tasked with finding the spy within his old friend, Rufra's, camp and soon becomes embroiled in finding a murderer and fending off attacks on the camp and nearby towns.
Girton is one of the most annoying characters I have come across for a while, being incredibly stupid, selfish and childish. He is mooted as an incredible warrior on his return, which I thought of as odd due to nobody seeing his true skills in the first book - he always had to pretend to be mostly useless to hide his assassin and sorcery abilities. Hi is also praised for solving the mystery over the assassin-hiring in the first book, even though he solved that by luck, people just confessing to him or other people working it out instead of him.
Here he again does next to nothing to solve the mystery of the spy and only when he is confronted by them does he work it out.
As in the first book, he again becomes embroiled in identifying a murderer in the camp, which he again does despite his stupidity.
I'm all for an anti-hero but they are supposed to still make you either love them or hate them, I found myself completely indifferent to Girton's plight and just wanted to get through it.
There were more typical fantasy battle scenes in this book, which were well executed, but these were few and far between and came somewhat at odds with the plot. This redeemed the book for me.
However, as with the first book, there were no hints at who the culprit was, too much of it was left to the reveal, meaning the mystery aspect of the book was a little clumsy.
And the dream sequences, which in the first book served to tell the story of Girton's upbringing, here are a complete nonsense and add nothing to the story. Just flowery nonsense.
Barker has a good turn of phrase, but at times I thought it just confusing:
"The impact came from behind, high in the centre of my back, throwing me forward.
An arrow.
I knew the way they killed. Felt its ghost as it ruptured my lungs, split my breastbone and burst from my chest. I hit the floor, dust billowing from the carpet. The weight on my back forced me down into the choking cloud.
Not an arrow."
For me this was style over substance and left me unnecessarily confused as to what was happening.
The first person perspective is also fatally flawed in this setting as we therefore automatically know Girton survives, taking the edge off all the battles he is involved in.
In summary, a little flowery at times and doesn't know whether it wants to be a fantasy book or a thriller and succeeds in neither all that well.
I read Blood of Assassins straight on the back of Age of Assassins, which I thought was OK.
Here we are back with Girton Club-Foot and his assassin master 5 years after the conclusion of the first book. Having travelled as mercenaries during this time, Girton has stopped training with the sword and picked up a warhammer instead. The book opens with he and his master seeing off some foreign assassins of their own, his master becoming poisoned in the conflict.
The Tired Lands has deteriorated over this time with Girton's three fellow squires all vying to become king, resulting in a long war that has taken its toll on the land and its people.
Girton becomes tasked with finding the spy within his old friend, Rufra's, camp and soon becomes embroiled in finding a murderer and fending off attacks on the camp and nearby towns.
Girton is one of the most annoying characters I have come across for a while, being incredibly stupid, selfish and childish. He is mooted as an incredible warrior on his return, which I thought of as odd due to nobody seeing his true skills in the first book - he always had to pretend to be mostly useless to hide his assassin and sorcery abilities. Hi is also praised for solving the mystery over the assassin-hiring in the first book, even though he solved that by luck, people just confessing to him or other people working it out instead of him.
Here he again does next to nothing to solve the mystery of the spy and only when he is confronted by them does he work it out.
As in the first book, he again becomes embroiled in identifying a murderer in the camp, which he again does despite his stupidity.
I'm all for an anti-hero but they are supposed to still make you either love them or hate them, I found myself completely indifferent to Girton's plight and just wanted to get through it.
There were more typical fantasy battle scenes in this book, which were well executed, but these were few and far between and came somewhat at odds with the plot. This redeemed the book for me.
However, as with the first book, there were no hints at who the culprit was, too much of it was left to the reveal, meaning the mystery aspect of the book was a little clumsy.
And the dream sequences, which in the first book served to tell the story of Girton's upbringing, here are a complete nonsense and add nothing to the story. Just flowery nonsense.
Barker has a good turn of phrase, but at times I thought it just confusing:
"The impact came from behind, high in the centre of my back, throwing me forward.
An arrow.
I knew the way they killed. Felt its ghost as it ruptured my lungs, split my breastbone and burst from my chest. I hit the floor, dust billowing from the carpet. The weight on my back forced me down into the choking cloud.
Not an arrow."
For me this was style over substance and left me unnecessarily confused as to what was happening.
The first person perspective is also fatally flawed in this setting as we therefore automatically know Girton survives, taking the edge off all the battles he is involved in.
In summary, a little flowery at times and doesn't know whether it wants to be a fantasy book or a thriller and succeeds in neither all that well.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Hugh Jackman returns for his final performance of his iconic Wolverine character in “Logan” and if this is his last outing, he has picked the best of the series for his swan song.
The film takes place in the near future where an aging and broken down Logan makes a living driving a limo near El Paso.
The man who does not age and instantly heals has found his powers are rapidly fading and he has lost much of his will to live and only the fact that he is secretly watching over an aged and dementia riddled Professor X (Patrick Stewart), gives him any purpose in life.
Logan is a very angry and broken individual who wants nothing more than to purchase a boat and escape with the Professor, something that their Albino companion Caliban (Stephan Merchant) has an issue with due to his severe issues with the sun.
It is revealed that there have not been any new mutants born in over 20 years and as such, those that are left are very scarce, and considered a dying breed.
When a woman encounters Logan she insists that she take her and a young girl to a locale, but Logan wants no part of this. His suspicions are raised when a mysterious agent contacts him and tells him that he needs to let them have the girl and woman should they contact him again. Logan finds his fragile world upended when fate forces him, the Professor, and the mysterious girl to run after a deadly encounter with a large squad of troops and police.
It is revealed that the girl is part of a secret experiment that those behind it will stop at nothing to control and as such, Logan is brought into a conflict that he wants no part of.
In a bloody and violent series of confrontations, Logan must find the strength he no longer has to keep those in his care safe against overwhelming odds.
“Logan” is a darker and more violent look into the Marvel world. The film earns an R rating due to the graphic violence which underscores the intensity and danger of the world in which Logan now lives in. Jackman plays the character as a worn down individual who wants nothing more to do with his glory years and simply has grown tired of living in his former shadow.
Stewart is very good in a sympathetic role of seeing the powerful man he once was diminished due to age and mental illness as he and Logan have become pathetic shells of the once great people they were. Forced to live in seclusion and avoiding the very public they fought to save on multiple occasions.
Director James Mangold who also worked on the script clearly understands the characters and wanted to give fans a darker and more intense look into their world.
There are no grand super villains, legions of mutants, massive explosions, and abundances of FX shots to this story. Instead we get a raw and moving human story that is not afraid to let the characters drive the film. While there are plenty of action scenes in the film, they never overshadow the fact that the story is a tale of real people and not the typical comic film where viewers are deluged with constant eye candy. In fact the film actually keeps a very minimalistic approach to the visuals as much of it is set in the desert and other stark landscapes and towns.
The film does drag a bit as it nears the finale, but the payoff is highly satisfying and should delight fans.
The film is also moving in a way that one would not expect from a film in the X-men series and if this is truly the last outing for Jackman, he could not have picked a more perfect film as this is easily the best of the series.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/17/logan/
The film takes place in the near future where an aging and broken down Logan makes a living driving a limo near El Paso.
The man who does not age and instantly heals has found his powers are rapidly fading and he has lost much of his will to live and only the fact that he is secretly watching over an aged and dementia riddled Professor X (Patrick Stewart), gives him any purpose in life.
Logan is a very angry and broken individual who wants nothing more than to purchase a boat and escape with the Professor, something that their Albino companion Caliban (Stephan Merchant) has an issue with due to his severe issues with the sun.
It is revealed that there have not been any new mutants born in over 20 years and as such, those that are left are very scarce, and considered a dying breed.
When a woman encounters Logan she insists that she take her and a young girl to a locale, but Logan wants no part of this. His suspicions are raised when a mysterious agent contacts him and tells him that he needs to let them have the girl and woman should they contact him again. Logan finds his fragile world upended when fate forces him, the Professor, and the mysterious girl to run after a deadly encounter with a large squad of troops and police.
It is revealed that the girl is part of a secret experiment that those behind it will stop at nothing to control and as such, Logan is brought into a conflict that he wants no part of.
In a bloody and violent series of confrontations, Logan must find the strength he no longer has to keep those in his care safe against overwhelming odds.
“Logan” is a darker and more violent look into the Marvel world. The film earns an R rating due to the graphic violence which underscores the intensity and danger of the world in which Logan now lives in. Jackman plays the character as a worn down individual who wants nothing more to do with his glory years and simply has grown tired of living in his former shadow.
Stewart is very good in a sympathetic role of seeing the powerful man he once was diminished due to age and mental illness as he and Logan have become pathetic shells of the once great people they were. Forced to live in seclusion and avoiding the very public they fought to save on multiple occasions.
Director James Mangold who also worked on the script clearly understands the characters and wanted to give fans a darker and more intense look into their world.
There are no grand super villains, legions of mutants, massive explosions, and abundances of FX shots to this story. Instead we get a raw and moving human story that is not afraid to let the characters drive the film. While there are plenty of action scenes in the film, they never overshadow the fact that the story is a tale of real people and not the typical comic film where viewers are deluged with constant eye candy. In fact the film actually keeps a very minimalistic approach to the visuals as much of it is set in the desert and other stark landscapes and towns.
The film does drag a bit as it nears the finale, but the payoff is highly satisfying and should delight fans.
The film is also moving in a way that one would not expect from a film in the X-men series and if this is truly the last outing for Jackman, he could not have picked a more perfect film as this is easily the best of the series.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/17/logan/
Empire magazine: movie news, interviews & reviews
Magazines & Newspapers
8.0
Rate It
App
Looking for World-Class Movie Coverage? Empire on the iPad is a smorgasbord of A-list stars...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
The Human Body Lite
Education and Medical
App
Try the lite version of the award-winning Human Body app for free! Discover what we’re made of...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
An absolute snooze
Here comes yet another superhero film. Ending Marvel’s year that has included the charming Big Hero 6, the overstuffed Avengers: Age of Ultron and the surprisingly excellent Ant-Man, the Fox produced Fantastic Four reboot has a tough job trying to get audiences to forget the horror that came before it.
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
James Franco (1 more)
The tone
Far from a disaster
If you haven't seen The Room, then I urge you to do so at once. It's a bemusing, confusing, unintentionally hilarious 90 odd minutes that fully deserves all the cult screenings and bewildered wonder that it has garnered over the years. It's without question a perfect awful movie. And here with The Disaster Artist, based on the book of the same name, we get to see the story of just went on to get this film made.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
Bookapotamus (289 KP) rated FAME in Books
Oct 24, 2018
An Interesting Exploration of Fame
Raise your hand if you LOVED Family Ties as a kid! And had a crush on Alex P. Keaton? And wanted TO BE Mallory!?! Justine Bateman was an idol of mine in the 80's. If I could be like her, or look like her, I pressed my parents to give me a sister just like her! But I got stuck with a brother. Boo!
It's funny, because when I first heard about this book, I said first thing, "Whatever happened to her?" in that snarky, snide voice - like oh, she was has-been, she didn't do anything after Family Ties, she's a one-hit wonder.... And THAT is exactly the type of attitude Justine addresses in this book. (I'm totally sorry for what I said btw Justine and I still love you!)
If you're looking for the behind the scenes secrets and juicy scandal of the beloved sitcom - this is not the book. If you want the scoop on MJ Fox and hanging with child stars of the 80's - nope, not that book either. In fact, one of the first chapters in the book fully explains this - the book is NOT a memoir. It's an exploration of fame. Justine dissects everything from childhood fame in the 80's, to reality star "fame" of today, as well as both the construction AND destruction of fame that social media can make happen. I was fascinated by her take on all things fame. I felt for her - being an actress on a hit TV show, and only being seen for THAT. That her education, and directing, and successes in business mean nothing - cause the "whatever happened to her" mentality translates to - well, if we haven't seen her on TV anymore - she must be a failure in life.
I loved reading this - she's frantic, and passionate, and, OK I'll say it- a bit crazy, yes - but do you blame her? Imagine people saying about you "Boy, she sure has let herself go" on a public forum, on google searches, on Twitter. Just cause the last time they saw her she was 21 - and now she's 50. Well, clearly she's aged - duh. Obviously she doesn't LOOK the same!
I gobbled up every chapter and loved her take on how crazy it is to be famous, but how much crazier it is today. Sure, there's some namedropping, some mentions of Michael J. Fox, Sarah Jessica Parker, and more - and there's even a bunch of color photos in the book that she talks about and references throughout the book, which I loved. I didn't need the juicy gossip, as I felt like it made me understand celebrities more and totally got me out of that mentality of "Oh, they wanted to be in the spotlight, so they are just automatically targets." No. I feel terrible now for ever ragging on a celeb in the spotlight - especially the young ones out there.
But I'm still not laying off the reality "stars" ;) haha.
It's funny, because when I first heard about this book, I said first thing, "Whatever happened to her?" in that snarky, snide voice - like oh, she was has-been, she didn't do anything after Family Ties, she's a one-hit wonder.... And THAT is exactly the type of attitude Justine addresses in this book. (I'm totally sorry for what I said btw Justine and I still love you!)
If you're looking for the behind the scenes secrets and juicy scandal of the beloved sitcom - this is not the book. If you want the scoop on MJ Fox and hanging with child stars of the 80's - nope, not that book either. In fact, one of the first chapters in the book fully explains this - the book is NOT a memoir. It's an exploration of fame. Justine dissects everything from childhood fame in the 80's, to reality star "fame" of today, as well as both the construction AND destruction of fame that social media can make happen. I was fascinated by her take on all things fame. I felt for her - being an actress on a hit TV show, and only being seen for THAT. That her education, and directing, and successes in business mean nothing - cause the "whatever happened to her" mentality translates to - well, if we haven't seen her on TV anymore - she must be a failure in life.
I loved reading this - she's frantic, and passionate, and, OK I'll say it- a bit crazy, yes - but do you blame her? Imagine people saying about you "Boy, she sure has let herself go" on a public forum, on google searches, on Twitter. Just cause the last time they saw her she was 21 - and now she's 50. Well, clearly she's aged - duh. Obviously she doesn't LOOK the same!
I gobbled up every chapter and loved her take on how crazy it is to be famous, but how much crazier it is today. Sure, there's some namedropping, some mentions of Michael J. Fox, Sarah Jessica Parker, and more - and there's even a bunch of color photos in the book that she talks about and references throughout the book, which I loved. I didn't need the juicy gossip, as I felt like it made me understand celebrities more and totally got me out of that mentality of "Oh, they wanted to be in the spotlight, so they are just automatically targets." No. I feel terrible now for ever ragging on a celeb in the spotlight - especially the young ones out there.
But I'm still not laying off the reality "stars" ;) haha.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Lost Girls of Paris in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Book-Review-Banner-3.png?resize=1024%2C576&ssl=1"/>;
In the 1940’s, with the world at war, Eleanor Trigg leads a mysterious ring of secret female agents in London. Twelve of these women are sent to Paris to aid the resistance.
<b>They never return home!</b>
Shortly after the war ends, passing through New York’s Grand Central Station, Grace Healey finds an abandoned suitcase beneath a bench. The case is filled with a dozen photographs, each of a different woman.
Setting out to find the women in the pictures, Grace is drawn into the mystery of the lost girls of Paris, their fierce friendship, unthinkable bravery – and, ultimately, the worst kind of betrayal.
Eleanor is a woman that men fear and women hate. Wherever she goes, fear follows. However, in a world of men who lead and men who are in war, she starts a programme in London where she recruits women, prepares them and deploys them to help in the war. The women have to aid the man, transmit radio messages and blend in with the french people. Eleanor makes sure they are prepared for every possible scenario, and she would’ve joined them, if they let her. As much as she seems cruel, she loves her girls like her daughters, and when things go horribly wrong, she blames herself.
Marie never imagined she would be recruited by Eleanor. Leaving her daughter behind and going into the unknown, she is deployed in Paris for a very dangerous mission. But can friendships so easily made survive the dark days of war? And what happens when Marie is one of those twelve women that disappear without a trace, never to be seen again…
And then Grace finds the suitcase full of photos of women and she can’t help but wonder what happened to them. The paths of these three women will indirectly cross over, leaving us, readers, with an amazing story to follow.
The writing is incredible and it transports you right in the 1940’s. Feelings and emotions are overflowing. I am not completely sure how I felt with the ending, as it ended too predictable for my taste, with a lot of unrealistic scenes and no character development, really.
But even despite all that, it warmed my heart and made me rethink my life decisions. The Lost Girls of Paris is a book about women who are brave and loyal. Women who are not afraid to stand up and fight. Women who have everything to lose and nothing to regret. A tale of pure emotion.
Thank you to the team at HarperCollins – HQ, for sending me a paperback ARC copy of this book, in exchange for my honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Book-Review-Banner-3.png?resize=1024%2C576&ssl=1"/>;
In the 1940’s, with the world at war, Eleanor Trigg leads a mysterious ring of secret female agents in London. Twelve of these women are sent to Paris to aid the resistance.
<b>They never return home!</b>
Shortly after the war ends, passing through New York’s Grand Central Station, Grace Healey finds an abandoned suitcase beneath a bench. The case is filled with a dozen photographs, each of a different woman.
Setting out to find the women in the pictures, Grace is drawn into the mystery of the lost girls of Paris, their fierce friendship, unthinkable bravery – and, ultimately, the worst kind of betrayal.
Eleanor is a woman that men fear and women hate. Wherever she goes, fear follows. However, in a world of men who lead and men who are in war, she starts a programme in London where she recruits women, prepares them and deploys them to help in the war. The women have to aid the man, transmit radio messages and blend in with the french people. Eleanor makes sure they are prepared for every possible scenario, and she would’ve joined them, if they let her. As much as she seems cruel, she loves her girls like her daughters, and when things go horribly wrong, she blames herself.
Marie never imagined she would be recruited by Eleanor. Leaving her daughter behind and going into the unknown, she is deployed in Paris for a very dangerous mission. But can friendships so easily made survive the dark days of war? And what happens when Marie is one of those twelve women that disappear without a trace, never to be seen again…
And then Grace finds the suitcase full of photos of women and she can’t help but wonder what happened to them. The paths of these three women will indirectly cross over, leaving us, readers, with an amazing story to follow.
The writing is incredible and it transports you right in the 1940’s. Feelings and emotions are overflowing. I am not completely sure how I felt with the ending, as it ended too predictable for my taste, with a lot of unrealistic scenes and no character development, really.
But even despite all that, it warmed my heart and made me rethink my life decisions. The Lost Girls of Paris is a book about women who are brave and loyal. Women who are not afraid to stand up and fight. Women who have everything to lose and nothing to regret. A tale of pure emotion.
Thank you to the team at HarperCollins – HQ, for sending me a paperback ARC copy of this book, in exchange for my honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
JT (287 KP) rated The Raid 2 (2014) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Stop….pause….take a breath, you’ll need to catch it after witnessing one of the finest action films made for some time.
The follow up to The Raid packs an even harder punch, with our hero Rama (Iko Uwais) sent undercover to bring down a crime family and uncover yet more police corruption.
The first film was simplistic enough, a SWAT team enter a building and (without the use of an elevator) must navigate their way up to the top floor to bring down a powerful but mediocre drug lord. Praised for its gritty no holds barred fight sequences, and perfectly timed action it was nothing short of a hit.
Part 2 follows practically from where the last ended, Rama is hurried away to a secluded location and given the rundown explaining that all his efforts were for nothing, but that he still has a big part to play. Although he doesn’t have much of a choice in the matter.
The-Raid-2-Gareth-Evans
To keep his family safe he has to get close to the arrogant son of a mob boss, Ucok (Arifin Putra), and to do this must infiltrate a prison by committing a high profile crime that will get him noticed by the mafia top brass. What is only supposed to be a few months turns into a couple of years, giving Rama more than enough time to get right under the skin of Ucok.
The storyline isn’t anything unique with shades of Infernal Affairs about it, police corruption, undercover cops and feuding mafia families probably seem all too familiar but director Gareth Evans lays it out in such a way that the similarities end right there.
The story delves deeper into several subplots all of which trail off on their own, but they don’t hamper the overall narrative or confuse things in a way which will make the film harder to follow and at an ass numbing 150 minutes that might be easier said than done.
Then there is the inclusion of three of the badest characters you’re ever likely to see. Hammer Girl, whose special moves entail ripping people in two with claw hammers, Baseball Bat Man, you can probably guess his unique ability and then The Assassin, who armed with a pair of kerambits’ is a silent but very much a deadly force.
There’s returning actor Yayan Ruhian who played Mad Dog in the first film but who has reappeared here as an ass-kicking hobo aiding one of the families, but ends up in the crosshairs of an instigated war were blood hasn’t been spilt in over ten years.
Evans cuts from the action with dramatic undertones, of which the performances are very good, its the gratuitous violence that Raid fans will have shelled out their money for. It’s wince-inducing on another level, whether it’s getting an arm snapped in half, a pelvis dislocated or a hammer ripped through someone’s cheek you’ll probably find yourself twisting and turning in your seat.
the-raid-2-berandal-26
The choreography is mesmerising as Evans interlocks a Godfather-like tale with action that doesn’t give you enough time to look away from the screen. From a mass prison yard scrap, an epic car chase where back seat driving takes on a whole different meaning and a jaw-dropping kitchen fight finale, it’s a film that will live long in the action memory.
Leaving the confines of a tower block behind the action and story run riot through lush green marshes, back streets and bars to city streets. The editing is short and sharp like a punch to the head, moving gracefully enough that it doesn’t judder the explosive action or disjoint the scenes of real drama.
It’s thoroughly entertaining which has justified all the hype beforehand, wonderfully shot and exhilarating throughout Evans will have his work cut out to make sure that The Raid 3 caps an action trilogy masterclass.
The follow up to The Raid packs an even harder punch, with our hero Rama (Iko Uwais) sent undercover to bring down a crime family and uncover yet more police corruption.
The first film was simplistic enough, a SWAT team enter a building and (without the use of an elevator) must navigate their way up to the top floor to bring down a powerful but mediocre drug lord. Praised for its gritty no holds barred fight sequences, and perfectly timed action it was nothing short of a hit.
Part 2 follows practically from where the last ended, Rama is hurried away to a secluded location and given the rundown explaining that all his efforts were for nothing, but that he still has a big part to play. Although he doesn’t have much of a choice in the matter.
The-Raid-2-Gareth-Evans
To keep his family safe he has to get close to the arrogant son of a mob boss, Ucok (Arifin Putra), and to do this must infiltrate a prison by committing a high profile crime that will get him noticed by the mafia top brass. What is only supposed to be a few months turns into a couple of years, giving Rama more than enough time to get right under the skin of Ucok.
The storyline isn’t anything unique with shades of Infernal Affairs about it, police corruption, undercover cops and feuding mafia families probably seem all too familiar but director Gareth Evans lays it out in such a way that the similarities end right there.
The story delves deeper into several subplots all of which trail off on their own, but they don’t hamper the overall narrative or confuse things in a way which will make the film harder to follow and at an ass numbing 150 minutes that might be easier said than done.
Then there is the inclusion of three of the badest characters you’re ever likely to see. Hammer Girl, whose special moves entail ripping people in two with claw hammers, Baseball Bat Man, you can probably guess his unique ability and then The Assassin, who armed with a pair of kerambits’ is a silent but very much a deadly force.
There’s returning actor Yayan Ruhian who played Mad Dog in the first film but who has reappeared here as an ass-kicking hobo aiding one of the families, but ends up in the crosshairs of an instigated war were blood hasn’t been spilt in over ten years.
Evans cuts from the action with dramatic undertones, of which the performances are very good, its the gratuitous violence that Raid fans will have shelled out their money for. It’s wince-inducing on another level, whether it’s getting an arm snapped in half, a pelvis dislocated or a hammer ripped through someone’s cheek you’ll probably find yourself twisting and turning in your seat.
the-raid-2-berandal-26
The choreography is mesmerising as Evans interlocks a Godfather-like tale with action that doesn’t give you enough time to look away from the screen. From a mass prison yard scrap, an epic car chase where back seat driving takes on a whole different meaning and a jaw-dropping kitchen fight finale, it’s a film that will live long in the action memory.
Leaving the confines of a tower block behind the action and story run riot through lush green marshes, back streets and bars to city streets. The editing is short and sharp like a punch to the head, moving gracefully enough that it doesn’t judder the explosive action or disjoint the scenes of real drama.
It’s thoroughly entertaining which has justified all the hype beforehand, wonderfully shot and exhilarating throughout Evans will have his work cut out to make sure that The Raid 3 caps an action trilogy masterclass.