Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? There is always a purpose and a message the film-maker’s have manufactured and edited to suit themselves, I find. They often leave you with more questions than answers. The best ones are open to interpretation enough to allow you in; allowing the source material to speak for itself. The worst ones rely on talking heads too much and can feel very manipulative.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Spy Who Dumped Me (2018) in Movies
Aug 21, 2018
Not enough comedy (1 more)
Drags on way too long
More action spy movie than comedy
In recent years, whenever I go to watch a comedy at the cinema, I come away totally disappointed, and end up going off on a rant about the state of movie comedies these days when I review them afterwards. Mostly, these movies have a very simple plot premise, which they then just try and plaster over with a tonne of gross out scenes or poorly written 'comedy' set-pieces. Other times they feature a bit more story and plot, with the humour being more of an add-on. The Spy Who Dumped Me veers more towards the latter, ending up as more of an above average action spy movie than a comedy.
Mila Kunis is Audrey, celebrating her birthday in a bar. Only her celebrations have been ruined somewhat by the fact that her boyfriend Drew (Justin Theroux) recently dumped her. By text! She's with best friend Morgan (Kate McKinnon), and as they complain about Drew, we see that he's in a spot of bother of his own over in Europe - taking out bad guys in a market shootout, getting chased through somebody's apartment while the owners watch TV, jumping out of a window onto a truck, and casually strolling out of a building as it explodes behind him. But when Audrey sends him yet another text, this time threatening to burn all of his stuff, Drew quickly gets in touch with her. Turns out that a small trophy in among his little box of dirty undies and other possessions is the key to saving a lot of people, and the bad guys want to get their hands on it at all costs. So, Audrey and Morgan unwittingly become involved in the world of spies and villains, traveling around Europe and bumbling their way through all manner of problems to ensure that the trophy finds its way into the right hands.
As mentioned earlier, every effort has been made to make sure that this is a high action spy movie along the lines of the Bourne and Mission Impossible movies. The aforementioned escape from the bad guys, a huge restaurant shootout, a deadly villain, a high speed street chase involving cars, motorbikes and guns, not to mention almost as much double crossing/who can you trust shenanigans than MI: Fallout recently, are all present and presented really well. All the while, Audrey and Morgan bring lighthearted relief and humour to it all. Kunis and McKinnon doing exactly what we're used to from their separate movie comedies but coming together here as a really likeable team and with a good supporting cast too.
Overall, The Spy Who Dumped Me isn't too bad, but it isn't too great either. It also seemed to drag on way too much for my liking and I would have preferred a much tighter movie, with a few more laughs. Still fairly enjoyable though.
Mila Kunis is Audrey, celebrating her birthday in a bar. Only her celebrations have been ruined somewhat by the fact that her boyfriend Drew (Justin Theroux) recently dumped her. By text! She's with best friend Morgan (Kate McKinnon), and as they complain about Drew, we see that he's in a spot of bother of his own over in Europe - taking out bad guys in a market shootout, getting chased through somebody's apartment while the owners watch TV, jumping out of a window onto a truck, and casually strolling out of a building as it explodes behind him. But when Audrey sends him yet another text, this time threatening to burn all of his stuff, Drew quickly gets in touch with her. Turns out that a small trophy in among his little box of dirty undies and other possessions is the key to saving a lot of people, and the bad guys want to get their hands on it at all costs. So, Audrey and Morgan unwittingly become involved in the world of spies and villains, traveling around Europe and bumbling their way through all manner of problems to ensure that the trophy finds its way into the right hands.
As mentioned earlier, every effort has been made to make sure that this is a high action spy movie along the lines of the Bourne and Mission Impossible movies. The aforementioned escape from the bad guys, a huge restaurant shootout, a deadly villain, a high speed street chase involving cars, motorbikes and guns, not to mention almost as much double crossing/who can you trust shenanigans than MI: Fallout recently, are all present and presented really well. All the while, Audrey and Morgan bring lighthearted relief and humour to it all. Kunis and McKinnon doing exactly what we're used to from their separate movie comedies but coming together here as a really likeable team and with a good supporting cast too.
Overall, The Spy Who Dumped Me isn't too bad, but it isn't too great either. It also seemed to drag on way too much for my liking and I would have preferred a much tighter movie, with a few more laughs. Still fairly enjoyable though.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated American Gods in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I have only ever read one other adult book ( I don't count Coraline) by Gaiman, which was vastly different from this book in both style and mood - Stardust. A friend recommended I read this book many years ago since I like mythology. I found this book really had not much to do with mythology in the classic sense. Instead the characters that were pulled from mythology, such as Odin, Anansi, Horus, Bast, and Ganesha, among others, behaved like has-been D-list celebrities that struggle to survive in a country that is repeatedly described as "...a bad land for gods." The powers they rarely put on display were minimal and amounted to the same kind of "magic" as a skilled pick-pocket, con-artist, or amateur magician. The few times any real power is observed is once during the sexual scene of a re-invented Queen of Sheba (I'll spare you the R-rated details) and when the gods travel "behind the scenes," a state of existence that only the gods can enter.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Finest Hours (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The Finest Hours tells the story of four men who, in February of 1952, undertook one of the most daring rescue attempts in the history of the Unites States Coast Guard. A tanker, the SS Pendleton, is caught in a storm off the coast of New England and is ripped in half, leaving more than 30 sailors adrift and sinking. While Bernard Webber (Chris Pine) leads an impossible rescue in a lifeboat designed to hold only 12, his fiancée, Miriam (Holliday Grainger), struggles to come to terms with what it means to be the wife of a man who has to willingly risk his life for others.
Year after year, it proves out. January is just not a good month for cinema. With one hand, the studios campaign for award season glory and with the other, dump their trash. That’s not to say The Finest Hours is total garbage. Even I’m not that cynical to unconditionally condemn something that shines a light on the triumph of the human spirit when faced with insurmountable odds. It’s just that there is only about one-third of a good film here. Anytime the crew of the Pendelton was onscreen, I was captivated. Their struggle for survival and their feats of engineering under incredible pressure make for riveting entertainment and should have been a film unto itself. These scenes unfortunately are interspaced with and, more often than not, forced to take a back seat to paint-by-numbers dialogue, two-dimensional caricatures (both disappointing when you consider the three writers on this film were behind The Fighter) and a shockingly abrasive score during the main U.S. Coast Guard narrative. And yes, it may be called The Finest Hours, but if that’s the title they’re going with a little more effort should have been put into the rescuers, as opposed to those being rescued. Overall, we’re deprived of a sense of urgency, in what is supposed to be a race against time, and an intimacy with any character performed well enough to be worth caring about.
At least this isn’t a complete waste of an all-star cast. I’ll ease off on Chris Pine, tempted as I might be to pick on him. After having fumbled his way through both Captain Kirk and Jack Ryan, doing so now in a flick produced by Disney would feel rather like a cheap shot. Instead it’s fairer to write off the other, usually more dependable leads and praise Casey Affleck, who alone makes The Finest Hours watchable. Ironically, he plays the man who has to keep not only half a ship afloat, but an entire crew together. Between Eric Bana’s overstatement, Ben Foster’s understatement, and a questionable casting choice in Holliday Grainger, Affleck is heads above the rest when it comes to making courage and sentiment ring true.
A regrettable execution notwithstanding, better can and should have been done to honor these distinguished service members and viewers looking for a storytelling standard above the level of your average Hallmark original are advised to look elsewhere. Try, for instance, Oliver Stone’s (not as controversial as we all thought it was going to be) World Trade Center for a better example of how these tales of perseverance and survival are supposed to be done.
Year after year, it proves out. January is just not a good month for cinema. With one hand, the studios campaign for award season glory and with the other, dump their trash. That’s not to say The Finest Hours is total garbage. Even I’m not that cynical to unconditionally condemn something that shines a light on the triumph of the human spirit when faced with insurmountable odds. It’s just that there is only about one-third of a good film here. Anytime the crew of the Pendelton was onscreen, I was captivated. Their struggle for survival and their feats of engineering under incredible pressure make for riveting entertainment and should have been a film unto itself. These scenes unfortunately are interspaced with and, more often than not, forced to take a back seat to paint-by-numbers dialogue, two-dimensional caricatures (both disappointing when you consider the three writers on this film were behind The Fighter) and a shockingly abrasive score during the main U.S. Coast Guard narrative. And yes, it may be called The Finest Hours, but if that’s the title they’re going with a little more effort should have been put into the rescuers, as opposed to those being rescued. Overall, we’re deprived of a sense of urgency, in what is supposed to be a race against time, and an intimacy with any character performed well enough to be worth caring about.
At least this isn’t a complete waste of an all-star cast. I’ll ease off on Chris Pine, tempted as I might be to pick on him. After having fumbled his way through both Captain Kirk and Jack Ryan, doing so now in a flick produced by Disney would feel rather like a cheap shot. Instead it’s fairer to write off the other, usually more dependable leads and praise Casey Affleck, who alone makes The Finest Hours watchable. Ironically, he plays the man who has to keep not only half a ship afloat, but an entire crew together. Between Eric Bana’s overstatement, Ben Foster’s understatement, and a questionable casting choice in Holliday Grainger, Affleck is heads above the rest when it comes to making courage and sentiment ring true.
A regrettable execution notwithstanding, better can and should have been done to honor these distinguished service members and viewers looking for a storytelling standard above the level of your average Hallmark original are advised to look elsewhere. Try, for instance, Oliver Stone’s (not as controversial as we all thought it was going to be) World Trade Center for a better example of how these tales of perseverance and survival are supposed to be done.
Space by Tinybop
Education and Reference
App
Boldly go where no kid has gone before in 3, 2, 1…. Liftoff! Travel into space to visit 8...
Hadley (567 KP) rated Stranger Things: Darkness on the Edge of Town in Books
Jul 17, 2019
Jim Hopper (1 more)
Serial killers and cults, oh my!
Too much attention to detail (1 more)
Using the same body language for every character
In 1977, New York City was a disaster; men were trying to return to a normal life after Vietnam ended, gangs were on every street corner, and a serial killer, by the name 'Son of Sam,' was on the loose. But for Detective Jim Hopper, New York was housing another serial killer just for him- - - a killer who is killing Vietnam war veterans, and leaving behind a psychic calling card, known as the Zener cards.
Adam Christopher is the chosen author to tell Stranger Things' fans about the most important homicide case that Jim Hopper ever worked on in the novel 'Darkness on the Edge of Town.' Fans may recall from season 2, when Eleven found a secret hatch in Hopper's cabin, it revealed boxes under the floor - one which was labeled 'New York.' This is that story.
The entire book is Hopper telling Eleven about his greatest homicide story from New York City. Readers get to meet new characters from Hopper's past, but the most memorable may be his partner in the Homicide Unit, Rosario Delgado (1977 was a time where Homicide Units didn't allow female detectives, and Delgado is one of the first of few that is allowed into the unit). Delgado, who is Cuban, but was raised in Queens, New York, has all the right attitude that wins over her partner, Hopper. The reader will realize that they are two-peas-in-a-pod.
Quickly, the story gets into the first case the two have together: the Zener card serial killer; here, we learn that there were two previous victims, both murdered the same way: stabbed five times with the wounds joining together to form a five-pointed star. Throughout the book, the story goes back and forth between 1977 and the present, where Eleven asks questions about the story, and also, Hopper questioning himself as to whether he should continue to tell Eleven the story.
But soon, we meet a very important man named Leroy Washington - a gang member who wants protection in exchange for the information that he holds- this leads Hopper to our villain: a cult leader who goes by the name Saint John. This villain believes that Satan is going to rise and destroy New York City.
Backtracking a little before, Hopper and Delgado are taken off the case of the Zener card murders, introducing readers to Special Agent Gallup. Gallup states that the third victim, Jacob Hoeler, was also a Special Agent, so the case is turned over to Federal Agents. "What you don't know, Detective, is that Jacob Hoeler is one of ours- - - Special Agent Jacob Hoeler. He was working on assignment, and the fact that he was killed in the course of his duties is of primary concern to my department. Therefore, we need to be sure that a most thorough investigation is carried out. In order to ensure that happens, we will be taking the case in-house. " Hopper, along with Delgado, refuse to let the case go, and secretly continue to work on it. But, as they dig deeper into the evidence and crime scenes, the two realize the murder case is a part of something much bigger - - - a cult that is armed with vehicles and weapons, ready to take over New York City for their leader, Saint John.
Readers get to see the story from both Hopper's and Delgado's point of view, which readers may question how Hopper knows Delgado's side of the story, but quickly to react, Eleven asks this very question for us: " 'Fair point,' said Hopper. 'But we - - - I mean, Delgado and me- - - we pieced it all together afterward. We had to interview everyone we could, and we put it all into a big official report. Actually, it took way longer to write that thing up than we spent on the investigation itself. We were even flown down to D.C. to present it to a bunch of anonymous suits in some federal building. They grilled us pretty well, too, although I ever found out who they all were. ' He grinned. ' Kinda sums the whole thing up, really.' " Even so, without Delgado's point of view, the story wouldn't have turned out as well as it did.
Hopper's obsession with cracking this case lands him in the center of it- - - he is recruited, not by choice, to the task force that is trying to top Saint John's big plan to destroy New York City. Leroy Washington, the informant from before, is Hopper's wing man for the mission, because Washington turns out to be a recruiting officer for the cult. Hopper is to pretend that he is a new recruit, and that he is an ex-cop, who just happened to 'murder' two people the night before. Hopper infiltrating the cult is one of the most exciting parts of the book, but the sequence of these scenes are much too short, leaving this reader disappointed.
Unfortunately, by this time, Delgado has become somewhat of a secondary character. She still works the case, being in the-know of Hopper going undercover, but we see little else of Delgado's character being developed. This is a missed opportunity indeed.
Although I enjoyed Christopher bringing Hopper's backstory to light, the writer is so detail oriented in his writing, that it bogged down much of the flow in the story. The reader is told things in almost every scene that come to nothing, and just seem to waste the reader's time. You may also find that the author uses the same words or physical actions to describe emotions for every single character (such as neck rolling to show stress), which gets old very quickly.
With that said, and only a few inconsistencies here and there, the book was very good. The story takes off pretty quickly and doesn't seem to slow down. The scenery descriptions put the reader right there with our favorite Hawkins Police Chief, Jim Hopper, but the best part about this book is that you don't have to be a Stranger Things' fan to enjoy it; anyone who enjoys Crime Fiction would love this story. Highly recommend!
Adam Christopher is the chosen author to tell Stranger Things' fans about the most important homicide case that Jim Hopper ever worked on in the novel 'Darkness on the Edge of Town.' Fans may recall from season 2, when Eleven found a secret hatch in Hopper's cabin, it revealed boxes under the floor - one which was labeled 'New York.' This is that story.
The entire book is Hopper telling Eleven about his greatest homicide story from New York City. Readers get to meet new characters from Hopper's past, but the most memorable may be his partner in the Homicide Unit, Rosario Delgado (1977 was a time where Homicide Units didn't allow female detectives, and Delgado is one of the first of few that is allowed into the unit). Delgado, who is Cuban, but was raised in Queens, New York, has all the right attitude that wins over her partner, Hopper. The reader will realize that they are two-peas-in-a-pod.
Quickly, the story gets into the first case the two have together: the Zener card serial killer; here, we learn that there were two previous victims, both murdered the same way: stabbed five times with the wounds joining together to form a five-pointed star. Throughout the book, the story goes back and forth between 1977 and the present, where Eleven asks questions about the story, and also, Hopper questioning himself as to whether he should continue to tell Eleven the story.
But soon, we meet a very important man named Leroy Washington - a gang member who wants protection in exchange for the information that he holds- this leads Hopper to our villain: a cult leader who goes by the name Saint John. This villain believes that Satan is going to rise and destroy New York City.
Backtracking a little before, Hopper and Delgado are taken off the case of the Zener card murders, introducing readers to Special Agent Gallup. Gallup states that the third victim, Jacob Hoeler, was also a Special Agent, so the case is turned over to Federal Agents. "What you don't know, Detective, is that Jacob Hoeler is one of ours- - - Special Agent Jacob Hoeler. He was working on assignment, and the fact that he was killed in the course of his duties is of primary concern to my department. Therefore, we need to be sure that a most thorough investigation is carried out. In order to ensure that happens, we will be taking the case in-house. " Hopper, along with Delgado, refuse to let the case go, and secretly continue to work on it. But, as they dig deeper into the evidence and crime scenes, the two realize the murder case is a part of something much bigger - - - a cult that is armed with vehicles and weapons, ready to take over New York City for their leader, Saint John.
Readers get to see the story from both Hopper's and Delgado's point of view, which readers may question how Hopper knows Delgado's side of the story, but quickly to react, Eleven asks this very question for us: " 'Fair point,' said Hopper. 'But we - - - I mean, Delgado and me- - - we pieced it all together afterward. We had to interview everyone we could, and we put it all into a big official report. Actually, it took way longer to write that thing up than we spent on the investigation itself. We were even flown down to D.C. to present it to a bunch of anonymous suits in some federal building. They grilled us pretty well, too, although I ever found out who they all were. ' He grinned. ' Kinda sums the whole thing up, really.' " Even so, without Delgado's point of view, the story wouldn't have turned out as well as it did.
Hopper's obsession with cracking this case lands him in the center of it- - - he is recruited, not by choice, to the task force that is trying to top Saint John's big plan to destroy New York City. Leroy Washington, the informant from before, is Hopper's wing man for the mission, because Washington turns out to be a recruiting officer for the cult. Hopper is to pretend that he is a new recruit, and that he is an ex-cop, who just happened to 'murder' two people the night before. Hopper infiltrating the cult is one of the most exciting parts of the book, but the sequence of these scenes are much too short, leaving this reader disappointed.
Unfortunately, by this time, Delgado has become somewhat of a secondary character. She still works the case, being in the-know of Hopper going undercover, but we see little else of Delgado's character being developed. This is a missed opportunity indeed.
Although I enjoyed Christopher bringing Hopper's backstory to light, the writer is so detail oriented in his writing, that it bogged down much of the flow in the story. The reader is told things in almost every scene that come to nothing, and just seem to waste the reader's time. You may also find that the author uses the same words or physical actions to describe emotions for every single character (such as neck rolling to show stress), which gets old very quickly.
With that said, and only a few inconsistencies here and there, the book was very good. The story takes off pretty quickly and doesn't seem to slow down. The scenery descriptions put the reader right there with our favorite Hawkins Police Chief, Jim Hopper, but the best part about this book is that you don't have to be a Stranger Things' fan to enjoy it; anyone who enjoys Crime Fiction would love this story. Highly recommend!
Sarah (7800 KP) rated David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet (2020) in Movies
Oct 14, 2020
Bleak and interesting
David Attenborough is possibly the most recognised face (and voice) when it comes to nature and our planet, and it’d be safe to say he’s also one of the most respected advisors on the environment. Now 94 years old, A Life on Our Planet is his “witness statement” for the environment and details his 60+ year career and how steeply the planet has declined during this time.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated A Place Beyond (The Danaan Trilogy, #3) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I fully enjoyed the last few months of reading the first two books in the Danaan trilogy – The Forgotten Ones and Stone of Destiny. After reading the second book, I was extremely excited to read the final book in the trilogy just to see what Laura Howard had in mind for some of my favorite characters of the summer – emphasis on some – because I was hoping for something huge, spectacular, and out of this world. Of course, I have high expectations for the last books of a series. You guys are special (read: reallyyyy special)!
Oh, and The Forgotten Ones did land in one of my best reads of 2014.
Sadly, A Place Beyond suffered a little bit of what I call "Last Book Syndrome," in which compared to the prior books, the last book didn't exceed my expectations. Let me repeat: The last books are special. Simply because most of the time, I rarely get to the last book of the series, reason or no reason.
There are probably a few reasons why Laura Howard's ending to her debut series didn't exactly meet up to my expectations:
First, I feel as though A Place Beyond is questioning all of the Danaans' loyalties and where it lies – are the characters on the same side, or are the characters puppets and there's a puppeteer behind the scenes (aside from the author, who actually created the world) playing all the characters? It seems to particularly question royalty, especially Saoirse.
Second, the ENDING (aka final battle). Third, the villain. I'm putting both reasons together – in a way – because they go interchangeably.
If anything, I find the ending pretty important. It's the final battle! Who shall prevail?!?!?! All fans are sitting at the edge of their seats, flipping the pages, waiting to see what the author would throw at them next, anticipating the next move. Drama! Hooray! We all love drama in a way.
But in A Place Beyond, the villain gives up. Typical "NOOOOO." Roar.
The villain agrees to break the curse she had on Allison's mother and father – it's been there since The Forgotten Ones. There doesn't seem to be a bit of a fight. Again, I point to the villain giving up. It's like Aoife readily agreed – if she was going to give up, why even bother in the first place? Or maybe I'm just one of those weirdos who think you should go down fighting. It's funny, honestly. I have this tendency to ask for a draw sometimes in a chess match at a tournament, but I choose not to in the end.
Which is precisely why I'm probably currently one of the worst chess players in my state (I'm not the competitive type – competitive hardly goes well). And I honestly don't care too much because I'm too busy being scholarly to study chess. School, work and books are my priorities. Obviously, blogging is part of it.
But I repeat (for like the third time): the villain basically gives up. I would have loved to see her trapped in a fey globe again if you ask me – are there stronger ones out there? After making Aoife break the geis first, of course.
Oh, and Aoife's so nonchalant about sacrificing herself. It's total irony, guys. Just complete irony. Now that I think about it, the villain is so bad, it's good. Not to be so critical or anything – I'm absolutely peachy.
But hey, I still enjoyed A Place Beyond while it lasted. That's all that matters, right? No, A Place Beyond wasn't a great end to a trilogy, but it was a happy read (read: Ever After by Chloe Miles is just one of those happy reads I'm talking about). A quick read that gave me a break from the essays and projects I had earlier this month (yeah, yeah. I have more things to worry about in December. 8th graders, stop complaining so much. I worry about your future in three years). And really, I needed a good, quick read.
-------------------
Review copy provided by the author for the blog tour
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/11/blog-tour-place-beyond-by-laura-howard-review-and-giveaway.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Oh, and The Forgotten Ones did land in one of my best reads of 2014.
Sadly, A Place Beyond suffered a little bit of what I call "Last Book Syndrome," in which compared to the prior books, the last book didn't exceed my expectations. Let me repeat: The last books are special. Simply because most of the time, I rarely get to the last book of the series, reason or no reason.
There are probably a few reasons why Laura Howard's ending to her debut series didn't exactly meet up to my expectations:
First, I feel as though A Place Beyond is questioning all of the Danaans' loyalties and where it lies – are the characters on the same side, or are the characters puppets and there's a puppeteer behind the scenes (aside from the author, who actually created the world) playing all the characters? It seems to particularly question royalty, especially Saoirse.
Second, the ENDING (aka final battle). Third, the villain. I'm putting both reasons together – in a way – because they go interchangeably.
If anything, I find the ending pretty important. It's the final battle! Who shall prevail?!?!?! All fans are sitting at the edge of their seats, flipping the pages, waiting to see what the author would throw at them next, anticipating the next move. Drama! Hooray! We all love drama in a way.
But in A Place Beyond, the villain gives up. Typical "NOOOOO." Roar.
The villain agrees to break the curse she had on Allison's mother and father – it's been there since The Forgotten Ones. There doesn't seem to be a bit of a fight. Again, I point to the villain giving up. It's like Aoife readily agreed – if she was going to give up, why even bother in the first place? Or maybe I'm just one of those weirdos who think you should go down fighting. It's funny, honestly. I have this tendency to ask for a draw sometimes in a chess match at a tournament, but I choose not to in the end.
Which is precisely why I'm probably currently one of the worst chess players in my state (I'm not the competitive type – competitive hardly goes well). And I honestly don't care too much because I'm too busy being scholarly to study chess. School, work and books are my priorities. Obviously, blogging is part of it.
But I repeat (for like the third time): the villain basically gives up. I would have loved to see her trapped in a fey globe again if you ask me – are there stronger ones out there? After making Aoife break the geis first, of course.
Oh, and Aoife's so nonchalant about sacrificing herself. It's total irony, guys. Just complete irony. Now that I think about it, the villain is so bad, it's good. Not to be so critical or anything – I'm absolutely peachy.
But hey, I still enjoyed A Place Beyond while it lasted. That's all that matters, right? No, A Place Beyond wasn't a great end to a trilogy, but it was a happy read (read: Ever After by Chloe Miles is just one of those happy reads I'm talking about). A quick read that gave me a break from the essays and projects I had earlier this month (yeah, yeah. I have more things to worry about in December. 8th graders, stop complaining so much. I worry about your future in three years). And really, I needed a good, quick read.
-------------------
Review copy provided by the author for the blog tour
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/11/blog-tour-place-beyond-by-laura-howard-review-and-giveaway.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Windy ~ Sleep Relax Meditate & white noise sounds
Health & Fitness and Entertainment
App
Makes you feel SO tired. Wasn't easy to create this. You will sleep, relax, meditate and focus...