Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated All the Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Mandy Lane (Amber Heard) becomes the most desirable girl in high school over one fateful summer; she's definitely not like the other girls her age though. While most guys want to do everything imaginable to her, she's turned them all down. The only guy she really gives the time of day is her best friend, Emmet (Michael Welch). That is until a certain incident at a pool party comes between them. Now nine months later, Mandy has distanced herself from Emmet and has a group of new friends. These friends have decided to invite Mandy to a ranch out in the middle of nowhere for a few days and the guys who tag along hope to accomplish what, up to this point, has been impossible. But when people begin to turn up missing, they soon realize that they're not alone and someone is taking their obsession with Mandy Lane a little too far.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane was like an urban myth for the longest period of time. The film debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2006 and released in the UK in 2008. It seemed to be released in every country other than the US shortly thereafter and it took another excruciating five years since it didn’t debut stateside until October of 2013. For a film that was originally shot in 2006, taking seven years to finally see distribution is bizarre and disheartening. The horror film originally caught the eye of The Weinstein Company immediately after debuting at TIFF, but the Weinstein brothers couldn’t come to a decision regarding its release (Harvey wanted a wide theatrical distribution while Bob thought the “artsy” film deserved more of a limited release). Rights to the film were eventually sold to a German company called Senator Entertainment US, who released the film in Germany and Austria and had the intention of premiering the film in the US. But the US branch of Senator Entertainment US went under in 2009 and rights to the film were dead in the water until The Weinstein Company reacquired distribution rights in 2013. The film was released on demand on September 6th with a limited theatrical run October 11th the same year.
The crew for the film consisted of college students freshly graduated from the American Film Institute. Producer Chad Feehan had the film as his thesis during college as work on the project initially began in 2003. Written by Jacob Forman and directed by Jonathan Levine (50/50, Warm Bodies), the film garnered an unbelievable amount of positive buzz online that accumulated into this massive pile of insurmountable expectations. Reading about the film for so long and hearing about how good it was from the biggest of horror sites probably inadvertently hurt the film more than it escalated interest for it.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane takes a Dazed and Confused approach to the first half of the film. Similar to how Wolf Creek had you swimming through 45-minutes of character development before the actual horror began (or how Hatchet was silly for the same amount of time before diving into awesome practical gore effects), All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is mostly high school kids getting into typical teenager shenanigans; drinking alcohol, doing drugs, and having sex. The second half of the film is pure horror and is essentially a slasher film. The horror is teased at first with little glimpses of terror before diving right back into high school mode, but the film is able to intensify its sense of dread to the point where it’s eventually beautifully horrific in every scene.
For a film that is made by first time filmmakers for less than $1 million, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane has beautiful cinematography. Vivid colors jump off the screen and seem even lusher once the film begins to cover itself in mud and dirt. Cinematographer Darren Genet has an eye for dynamic angles and utilizing when to focus and blur menacing figures in the background (or foreground) for maximum impact. The film also has a tendency to overlap shots in order to create an entirely new, which can probably be contributed to the talent of film editor Josh Noyes (The Wackness). These impressive filming techniques shine brightest when Bird (Edwin Hodge) is on-screen; when he goes to start the generator after the power goes out, when he confronts the killer, and the car chase. Like other successful film genres, horror can often become formulaic not only when it comes to its writing or how its acted but how it’s shot. It’s always a breath of fresh air when you can say a film is unique in some capacity; especially horror.
With Michael Welch mostly being associated with portraying popular high school student Mike Newton in the Twilight franchise, your expectations for a memorable performance from Welch in All the Boys Love Mandy Lane are probably fairly low. Around the time Mandy Lane was in peak hype mode, Welch was in the abysmal Day of the Dead remake. Directed by Steve Miner (Halloween H20) and also starring Nick Cannon, Day of the Dead is an atrocious remake (but maybe 2018’s remake Day of the Dead: Bloodline is worse). However, Welch’s portrayal of Emmet in Mandy Lane is exceptional. His performance, especially during the closing moments of the film, is captivating. He has this American Psycho quality to his psychotic behavior that is hauntingly mesmerizing.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane puts a different spin on the slasher film that would have had way more of an impact had it originally been released ten years ago instead of five. The film does require patience from the audience as the film takes a slow and steady approach to its eventual slasher nature. While the outcome is likely fairly predictable, watching how everything unfolds in Mandy Lane is where it shines. The ending is the film’s crown jewel and even though the killer is revealed its open ending suits the film’s already ambiguous nature. Now that All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is readily available at your fingertips, its originality seemed much more promising when it felt like it was the holy grail of horror films (kind of like The Poughkeepsie Tapes). The film’s consistency to offer a slasher that cuts in a different direction than most horror films along with Michael Welch’s brilliantly unbalanced performance makes All the Boys Love Mandy Lane a worthwhile experience.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is currently free to stream on Amazon if you have Starz with Prime Video Channels. It’s also currently available to rent via Amazon Video ($2.99), Vudu ($2.99), and iTunes ($3.99). The film is can be purchased on DVD ($9.91) and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($12.99) on Amazon and is even cheaper on eBay (the Blu-ray is available for $8.99 and the DVD is $7.98, both have free shipping).
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane was like an urban myth for the longest period of time. The film debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2006 and released in the UK in 2008. It seemed to be released in every country other than the US shortly thereafter and it took another excruciating five years since it didn’t debut stateside until October of 2013. For a film that was originally shot in 2006, taking seven years to finally see distribution is bizarre and disheartening. The horror film originally caught the eye of The Weinstein Company immediately after debuting at TIFF, but the Weinstein brothers couldn’t come to a decision regarding its release (Harvey wanted a wide theatrical distribution while Bob thought the “artsy” film deserved more of a limited release). Rights to the film were eventually sold to a German company called Senator Entertainment US, who released the film in Germany and Austria and had the intention of premiering the film in the US. But the US branch of Senator Entertainment US went under in 2009 and rights to the film were dead in the water until The Weinstein Company reacquired distribution rights in 2013. The film was released on demand on September 6th with a limited theatrical run October 11th the same year.
The crew for the film consisted of college students freshly graduated from the American Film Institute. Producer Chad Feehan had the film as his thesis during college as work on the project initially began in 2003. Written by Jacob Forman and directed by Jonathan Levine (50/50, Warm Bodies), the film garnered an unbelievable amount of positive buzz online that accumulated into this massive pile of insurmountable expectations. Reading about the film for so long and hearing about how good it was from the biggest of horror sites probably inadvertently hurt the film more than it escalated interest for it.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane takes a Dazed and Confused approach to the first half of the film. Similar to how Wolf Creek had you swimming through 45-minutes of character development before the actual horror began (or how Hatchet was silly for the same amount of time before diving into awesome practical gore effects), All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is mostly high school kids getting into typical teenager shenanigans; drinking alcohol, doing drugs, and having sex. The second half of the film is pure horror and is essentially a slasher film. The horror is teased at first with little glimpses of terror before diving right back into high school mode, but the film is able to intensify its sense of dread to the point where it’s eventually beautifully horrific in every scene.
For a film that is made by first time filmmakers for less than $1 million, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane has beautiful cinematography. Vivid colors jump off the screen and seem even lusher once the film begins to cover itself in mud and dirt. Cinematographer Darren Genet has an eye for dynamic angles and utilizing when to focus and blur menacing figures in the background (or foreground) for maximum impact. The film also has a tendency to overlap shots in order to create an entirely new, which can probably be contributed to the talent of film editor Josh Noyes (The Wackness). These impressive filming techniques shine brightest when Bird (Edwin Hodge) is on-screen; when he goes to start the generator after the power goes out, when he confronts the killer, and the car chase. Like other successful film genres, horror can often become formulaic not only when it comes to its writing or how its acted but how it’s shot. It’s always a breath of fresh air when you can say a film is unique in some capacity; especially horror.
With Michael Welch mostly being associated with portraying popular high school student Mike Newton in the Twilight franchise, your expectations for a memorable performance from Welch in All the Boys Love Mandy Lane are probably fairly low. Around the time Mandy Lane was in peak hype mode, Welch was in the abysmal Day of the Dead remake. Directed by Steve Miner (Halloween H20) and also starring Nick Cannon, Day of the Dead is an atrocious remake (but maybe 2018’s remake Day of the Dead: Bloodline is worse). However, Welch’s portrayal of Emmet in Mandy Lane is exceptional. His performance, especially during the closing moments of the film, is captivating. He has this American Psycho quality to his psychotic behavior that is hauntingly mesmerizing.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane puts a different spin on the slasher film that would have had way more of an impact had it originally been released ten years ago instead of five. The film does require patience from the audience as the film takes a slow and steady approach to its eventual slasher nature. While the outcome is likely fairly predictable, watching how everything unfolds in Mandy Lane is where it shines. The ending is the film’s crown jewel and even though the killer is revealed its open ending suits the film’s already ambiguous nature. Now that All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is readily available at your fingertips, its originality seemed much more promising when it felt like it was the holy grail of horror films (kind of like The Poughkeepsie Tapes). The film’s consistency to offer a slasher that cuts in a different direction than most horror films along with Michael Welch’s brilliantly unbalanced performance makes All the Boys Love Mandy Lane a worthwhile experience.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is currently free to stream on Amazon if you have Starz with Prime Video Channels. It’s also currently available to rent via Amazon Video ($2.99), Vudu ($2.99), and iTunes ($3.99). The film is can be purchased on DVD ($9.91) and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($12.99) on Amazon and is even cheaper on eBay (the Blu-ray is available for $8.99 and the DVD is $7.98, both have free shipping).
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Focus (2015) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
The problem with Focus is that it treats its audience like we're all as dumb as nails. While the film itself is entertaining, its cons are unconvincing, and it's not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
After watching Focus, I thought back to a great line from Will Smith’s con artist character Nicky Spurgeon, in which he proclaims, “There’s two kinds of people in this world. There’s hammers and nails. You decide which one you want to be.” It’s a powerful and chilling line of dialogue that emphasizes Nicky’s need to exert power and control over others in order to be successful in his indecent business. The problem with the film, however, is that it treats its audience like we’re all as dumb as nails.
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ready or Not (2019) in Movies
Nov 5, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
I enjoyed this because it was basically bat shit crazy, but I also had some issues with it. The trailers looked great but going back to them now you see quite a lot of action from key points in the film. Because of the haphazard nature of everything I don't think it spoils anything but at the time I couldn't remember many of the trailers going in. The vibe I remembered getting from them was very much You're Next with a vague hint of Clue.
What stopped me in my tracks a little was what the film was trying to be. I thought it was going to be a homedy (yes I'm still trying to make my horror-comedy hybrid work), your traditional crazy horror with a comedic leaning... but what happened was a lot of drama, they were actually trying to be serious. Well, as serious as you can get when you're in the middle of hunting a bride on her wedding night. When mother and son sit to have a heart to heart I was actually taken out of the film for a moment as it wasn't in keeping with what else was happening.
Had this gone all the way over to crazy horror I would have given it a higher rating, they're fast paced and entertaining, the slight indecisiveness of what came to the screen really knocked it down for me. Even with the bizarre magic box tradition this film could have been something more serious but not by the time we get to that ending.
I'm really thankful that this game adaptation was at least better than Truth Or Dare. I don't think I could stand another stinker like that. The story is a nice easy one to get along with, family acquire a magic box that keeps them thriving and all they have to do is occasionally sacrifice someone that's loved deeply by one of the family... good old Satan bringing us a solid storyline.
Samara Weaving, or as I have to keep reminding myself "not Margot Robbie", plays our blushing bride, Grace. Boy does she throw a lot at this role, I like to think she got a lot of stress relief out of this as she fights back at her would be murderers. Thankfully Grace didn't end up in many of the drama-y bits so there was little to be annoyed about. Her magic moments included punching Georgie, swearing at the car and wailing like a banshee at the end like she'd gone feral. Bravo! But I think the best and worst bit was when she climbed out of hell, you knew what she was thinking, you knew she had no option and oh my god did I hurt in sympathy.
Adam Brody has to be the other stand out performance for me as the brother-in-law, Daniel Le Domas. We get a very small introduction to his character as a child but it really did help you to understand the way he is and why he reacts the way he does as they hunt Grace. The guilt he has from the first Hide & Seek he participated in is clearly part of the reason he's the son who's off the rails, but he keeps his protective nature from his childhood in adulthood towards his brother and Grace. He stops and talks with Grace during the hunt and you can see him switching allegiances as we get further through the story. Brody conveys this well and is actually the one character that you can sort of sympathise with. His death is the beginning of the end and it's an emotional moment that played out well on screen. I think he probably came out better not surviving to the end of the film.
There are lots of highs and lows with various characters throughout. Fitch is the "dumb" one and there was something magical about seeing him YouTubing how to use a crossbow and later asking Charity at what point they should cut and run.
Mark O'Brien as Alex Le Domas was probably my least favourite character. His scripting felt rather bland compared to some of the others... but mainly... what an arsehole! Just live in sin man! Why potentially doom her, I'm sure it wouldn't have been too hard to fall off the radar somehow. If he was already slightly estranged I can't see that going altogether would be much of a stretch.
Alex also gets what is possibly the most annoying part of the script, he's handcuffed to the bed and he starts using the chain as a saw to try to get through the ornamental bar... these aren't bit of Ikea furniture... in what universe is that going to work in this timeframe?! Stand up and throw your weight on it until it snaps! I was wondering if he was actually trying to break the handcuffs (an equally stupid idea), and do we actually see how he gets out of them? Now I've confused myself.
Anyway, this will become an epic if I don't move on.
I quite liked the way the film looked, once we got to the evening the whole set became a beautiful golden autumnal palette and it gave you a sense of wealth and history, but when you add in the blood and seeking you get a real sense of the hiding (that makes sense in my head). It did at times become dark, it was never so bad that you couldn't see what was happening but it allowed for the reintroduction of light at the end as the house burns behind her which was a nice touch.
The final sequence should probably get its own mention. Alex, obviously about to break after seeing his brother die and Grace bludgeoning his mother, is bizarrely confirming his fears that the pair will not be together after what has happened. He then turns on her so he can get back the only thing left in his life, his (now slightly smaller) family. I loved the slightly vampiric turn the scene took as they're exposed to the morning sun, I'm not sure I'd have recoiled from it quite so much but I appreciated the comedic value it added. The family's actual demise and Grace's ghost sighting are the reason this needed to be a homedy (Still no? Whatever.), there's no way that fits in with anything more serious. And I'm sorry but overall I didn't find it that funny, much like Last Blood I was reacting to the ridiculous violence.
I like to think that as the last bit of the house disintegrates in the fire and Grace is still sitting bleeding on the steps that a firefighter comes over with the seemingly untouched magic box and hands it to her because it looks like a family heirloom. She's a Le Domas now, and everything is hers...
Full review originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/ready-or-not-spoilers-movie-review.html
What stopped me in my tracks a little was what the film was trying to be. I thought it was going to be a homedy (yes I'm still trying to make my horror-comedy hybrid work), your traditional crazy horror with a comedic leaning... but what happened was a lot of drama, they were actually trying to be serious. Well, as serious as you can get when you're in the middle of hunting a bride on her wedding night. When mother and son sit to have a heart to heart I was actually taken out of the film for a moment as it wasn't in keeping with what else was happening.
Had this gone all the way over to crazy horror I would have given it a higher rating, they're fast paced and entertaining, the slight indecisiveness of what came to the screen really knocked it down for me. Even with the bizarre magic box tradition this film could have been something more serious but not by the time we get to that ending.
I'm really thankful that this game adaptation was at least better than Truth Or Dare. I don't think I could stand another stinker like that. The story is a nice easy one to get along with, family acquire a magic box that keeps them thriving and all they have to do is occasionally sacrifice someone that's loved deeply by one of the family... good old Satan bringing us a solid storyline.
Samara Weaving, or as I have to keep reminding myself "not Margot Robbie", plays our blushing bride, Grace. Boy does she throw a lot at this role, I like to think she got a lot of stress relief out of this as she fights back at her would be murderers. Thankfully Grace didn't end up in many of the drama-y bits so there was little to be annoyed about. Her magic moments included punching Georgie, swearing at the car and wailing like a banshee at the end like she'd gone feral. Bravo! But I think the best and worst bit was when she climbed out of hell, you knew what she was thinking, you knew she had no option and oh my god did I hurt in sympathy.
Adam Brody has to be the other stand out performance for me as the brother-in-law, Daniel Le Domas. We get a very small introduction to his character as a child but it really did help you to understand the way he is and why he reacts the way he does as they hunt Grace. The guilt he has from the first Hide & Seek he participated in is clearly part of the reason he's the son who's off the rails, but he keeps his protective nature from his childhood in adulthood towards his brother and Grace. He stops and talks with Grace during the hunt and you can see him switching allegiances as we get further through the story. Brody conveys this well and is actually the one character that you can sort of sympathise with. His death is the beginning of the end and it's an emotional moment that played out well on screen. I think he probably came out better not surviving to the end of the film.
There are lots of highs and lows with various characters throughout. Fitch is the "dumb" one and there was something magical about seeing him YouTubing how to use a crossbow and later asking Charity at what point they should cut and run.
Mark O'Brien as Alex Le Domas was probably my least favourite character. His scripting felt rather bland compared to some of the others... but mainly... what an arsehole! Just live in sin man! Why potentially doom her, I'm sure it wouldn't have been too hard to fall off the radar somehow. If he was already slightly estranged I can't see that going altogether would be much of a stretch.
Alex also gets what is possibly the most annoying part of the script, he's handcuffed to the bed and he starts using the chain as a saw to try to get through the ornamental bar... these aren't bit of Ikea furniture... in what universe is that going to work in this timeframe?! Stand up and throw your weight on it until it snaps! I was wondering if he was actually trying to break the handcuffs (an equally stupid idea), and do we actually see how he gets out of them? Now I've confused myself.
Anyway, this will become an epic if I don't move on.
I quite liked the way the film looked, once we got to the evening the whole set became a beautiful golden autumnal palette and it gave you a sense of wealth and history, but when you add in the blood and seeking you get a real sense of the hiding (that makes sense in my head). It did at times become dark, it was never so bad that you couldn't see what was happening but it allowed for the reintroduction of light at the end as the house burns behind her which was a nice touch.
The final sequence should probably get its own mention. Alex, obviously about to break after seeing his brother die and Grace bludgeoning his mother, is bizarrely confirming his fears that the pair will not be together after what has happened. He then turns on her so he can get back the only thing left in his life, his (now slightly smaller) family. I loved the slightly vampiric turn the scene took as they're exposed to the morning sun, I'm not sure I'd have recoiled from it quite so much but I appreciated the comedic value it added. The family's actual demise and Grace's ghost sighting are the reason this needed to be a homedy (Still no? Whatever.), there's no way that fits in with anything more serious. And I'm sorry but overall I didn't find it that funny, much like Last Blood I was reacting to the ridiculous violence.
I like to think that as the last bit of the house disintegrates in the fire and Grace is still sitting bleeding on the steps that a firefighter comes over with the seemingly untouched magic box and hands it to her because it looks like a family heirloom. She's a Le Domas now, and everything is hers...
Full review originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/ready-or-not-spoilers-movie-review.html
Jamie Towell Cook (13 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Kingdom Hearts III in Video Games
Apr 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Kingdom Hearts 3 is the long anticipated third part officially in the series. It started back in 2002 and now in 2019 we finally have the 3rd (and allegedly) final part of what is Sora and his friends story. In this time we have travelled to many beloved Disney classics from Mount Olympus to Neverland and for some bizarre reason we even went to Tarzan's world. During all of this Sora is learning how to be the Keyblade wielder and defend all the worlds from the threat of the darkness. On his journey he meets many familiar faces ranging from final fantasy characters such as Cloud, Tidus and Vivi to famous disney heroes such as Ariel, Beast, Jack Skellington.
Unfortunalty since it began in 2002 Kingdom Hearts became a jumbled mess jumping on different consoles along the way. It may have begun as a PlayStation game but soon after there was a spin off for the game boy advance and another for the psp and another for the nintendo ds. Releasing titles that actually continue the plot from the original game on various different consoles and expecting fans to just role with that and keep up, well thats not exactly the best of ideas! Luckily the story so far has been released and rereleased and rererereleased so that fans can figure out just what the hell is actually going on in this either brilliantly masterminded tale or a way for the game producers to milk the franchise for all its worth. I'll let you decide that one.
So any ways, with a whopping 14 years between KH2 and KH3 a lot has changed within the Disney world and with their new corporate purchases a lot of people had questions about what would we see in a new Kingdom Hearts. Would the new game feature any worlds from Marvel? Would we see something from the Muppet Show? Maybe Star Wars? The answer to this was a big fat no. They were going to keep it old school Disney......although by old school Disney that didn't have the same meaning as what I thought it would. Instead of the familiar faces we have grown accustomed to there is no Halloween Town, no Neverland, no Atlantica (Thank god, good call on that one) instead we visit new realms, draining whatever is left from the Frozen franchise and travelling to worlds such as Arendale, San Frantokyo and some other Disney Pixar worlds. Now i'm not saying there is anything wrong with these worlds because they are beautiful and stunning and fun to play through. Couldn't they have at least tried to feature some golden oldies as well. Something else that i noticed that as well that made me feel disappointed in this release was the lack of final fantasy characters, minus a very brief glimpse of 2 characters as statues thats pretty much it.
The story itself is appealing as it continues the tales of Sora, Ventus and Roxas and ultimately brings the trios story to a (almost) conclusion. The voice acting for the kingdom hearts series will never win any awards and in some areas is just hands down terrible but, as it plays out you notice it a lot less and just want to see where its all headed.
The gameplay is as it has always been, if its not broke don't fix it. There are a few additions though. Kingdom Hearts 1 had abilities, in kingdom hearts 2 we seen this become built upon by fusion. This was a way of fusing Sora's abilities with either Donald or Goofy and eventually both. Leading to Wisdom mode, which was magic based. Valour mode, which was strength and defence based. Master, which, yes you guessed it, is a mix of all the above. Limit mode, which brings Sora's abilities to the spotlight. Then you had Final form which was basically a combination of Limit and Master and finally there was anti form, this turned Sora into a heartless version of himself with attacks and abilities to match. These were all scrapped in Kingdom Hearts 3 to make way for attractions, which is an attack based on Disneyworld theme park attractions. There are also attacks based on whose in your team as well. As fun as these are in the beginning, they get old and repetitive fast. The summons have never really played a main part in the Kingdom Hearts series since its first release and KH3 makes that very apparent again, with what i thought was a very lackluster 5 summons in the form of Ariel, Ralph, Stitch, Simba and a dream eater from Kingdom Hearts own series. I mean come on, wheres Mushu? Genie? Bambi? Dumbo? Tinkerbell? Why aren't there any new ones? They could have played up new Pixar entries such as Bolt or Up, even The Incredibles.
The other feature that is new and unique to KH3 is the ability to transform the Keyblade. Now picking up a new keyblade isn't just about the stat boosts, they each feature something different and unique. Without giving too much away, all i can really say about this is the additions to turn your weapon in to such things as shields, blasters and other random creations based on the worlds they are related to is actually a brilliant concept and makes up for the drive form that was taken from KH2 and not featured again.
I really hope that Square Enix are planning on releasing some decent DLC for KH3. Hopefully in the form of some old Disney worlds, a coliseum and some extra story with old familiar faces. Because it is definitely needed.
The Gummi ship does manage to make a come back (yet again). I would like to say something positive about this because it does seem like a lot of work went into making this feel like a more relevant part of the game but, the controls take a bit of figuring out and there is no real need for it other than it being a mini game really.
If Square Enix does add some DLC that adds worlds, characters, keyblades and modes. Then i honestly believe they could boost the game from being a good game to an amazing game. Just listen to the fans, hear what they want and deliver.
I wish i had better news for Kingdom Hearts fans. Especially those who have waited those 14 years but i am judging this game harshly because of my love for the series and the length of time it has been under development.
Unfortunalty since it began in 2002 Kingdom Hearts became a jumbled mess jumping on different consoles along the way. It may have begun as a PlayStation game but soon after there was a spin off for the game boy advance and another for the psp and another for the nintendo ds. Releasing titles that actually continue the plot from the original game on various different consoles and expecting fans to just role with that and keep up, well thats not exactly the best of ideas! Luckily the story so far has been released and rereleased and rererereleased so that fans can figure out just what the hell is actually going on in this either brilliantly masterminded tale or a way for the game producers to milk the franchise for all its worth. I'll let you decide that one.
So any ways, with a whopping 14 years between KH2 and KH3 a lot has changed within the Disney world and with their new corporate purchases a lot of people had questions about what would we see in a new Kingdom Hearts. Would the new game feature any worlds from Marvel? Would we see something from the Muppet Show? Maybe Star Wars? The answer to this was a big fat no. They were going to keep it old school Disney......although by old school Disney that didn't have the same meaning as what I thought it would. Instead of the familiar faces we have grown accustomed to there is no Halloween Town, no Neverland, no Atlantica (Thank god, good call on that one) instead we visit new realms, draining whatever is left from the Frozen franchise and travelling to worlds such as Arendale, San Frantokyo and some other Disney Pixar worlds. Now i'm not saying there is anything wrong with these worlds because they are beautiful and stunning and fun to play through. Couldn't they have at least tried to feature some golden oldies as well. Something else that i noticed that as well that made me feel disappointed in this release was the lack of final fantasy characters, minus a very brief glimpse of 2 characters as statues thats pretty much it.
The story itself is appealing as it continues the tales of Sora, Ventus and Roxas and ultimately brings the trios story to a (almost) conclusion. The voice acting for the kingdom hearts series will never win any awards and in some areas is just hands down terrible but, as it plays out you notice it a lot less and just want to see where its all headed.
The gameplay is as it has always been, if its not broke don't fix it. There are a few additions though. Kingdom Hearts 1 had abilities, in kingdom hearts 2 we seen this become built upon by fusion. This was a way of fusing Sora's abilities with either Donald or Goofy and eventually both. Leading to Wisdom mode, which was magic based. Valour mode, which was strength and defence based. Master, which, yes you guessed it, is a mix of all the above. Limit mode, which brings Sora's abilities to the spotlight. Then you had Final form which was basically a combination of Limit and Master and finally there was anti form, this turned Sora into a heartless version of himself with attacks and abilities to match. These were all scrapped in Kingdom Hearts 3 to make way for attractions, which is an attack based on Disneyworld theme park attractions. There are also attacks based on whose in your team as well. As fun as these are in the beginning, they get old and repetitive fast. The summons have never really played a main part in the Kingdom Hearts series since its first release and KH3 makes that very apparent again, with what i thought was a very lackluster 5 summons in the form of Ariel, Ralph, Stitch, Simba and a dream eater from Kingdom Hearts own series. I mean come on, wheres Mushu? Genie? Bambi? Dumbo? Tinkerbell? Why aren't there any new ones? They could have played up new Pixar entries such as Bolt or Up, even The Incredibles.
The other feature that is new and unique to KH3 is the ability to transform the Keyblade. Now picking up a new keyblade isn't just about the stat boosts, they each feature something different and unique. Without giving too much away, all i can really say about this is the additions to turn your weapon in to such things as shields, blasters and other random creations based on the worlds they are related to is actually a brilliant concept and makes up for the drive form that was taken from KH2 and not featured again.
I really hope that Square Enix are planning on releasing some decent DLC for KH3. Hopefully in the form of some old Disney worlds, a coliseum and some extra story with old familiar faces. Because it is definitely needed.
The Gummi ship does manage to make a come back (yet again). I would like to say something positive about this because it does seem like a lot of work went into making this feel like a more relevant part of the game but, the controls take a bit of figuring out and there is no real need for it other than it being a mini game really.
If Square Enix does add some DLC that adds worlds, characters, keyblades and modes. Then i honestly believe they could boost the game from being a good game to an amazing game. Just listen to the fans, hear what they want and deliver.
I wish i had better news for Kingdom Hearts fans. Especially those who have waited those 14 years but i am judging this game harshly because of my love for the series and the length of time it has been under development.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Fury of Fire (Dragonfury, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b>NOTE:</b> I did not finish Fury of Fire. I reached page 207, out of 412, before I called it quits. My review reflects on what I read and no more, which is more than enough to be indicative to how the author creates her book.
During the course of reading, everyone comes across a book that just doesn't connect with them. That doesn't mean the book is bad or that others shouldn't read it, it just means the it isn't a good fit that particular person. This is that book for me. I had a very difficult time getting through what I read, mostly due to a bunch of little things that stood out and were what I consider oddities, especially in context to situations in the book. If I had to describe this book in one word, it'd be abrasive. The characters, the dialogue, and most importantly, the writing felt like rubbing sandpaper over a wound. Over and over again.
<b>THE BAD</b>
The constant bombardment of internalizing that both Myst and Bastian provide in this book was like a splinter under my fingernail. The more I dug, the more painful it became, and I started to dislike the book and main characters more and more as I read on. Admittedly, it was pretty easy to loathe Bastian and Myst when it became apparent that they are both boring and stupid, and I didn't find Bastian all that likeable in the first place. Call me crazy, but I just feel uneasy when a character wants to immediately jump the bones of a person he just met in horrific situation while she is frightened beyond belief. But apparently that's okay because he acknowledges his creepiness in a fit of mental self-flagellation. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. Maybe if that had been mentioned only once, I would have let it slide, but it keeps on like that for way too long. Apparently he's all alpha on the outside and emo on the inside. What a winning combination! Not. Myst herself starts off, uh, decent enough but then quickly becomes the nitwit I was hoping to avoid. She gets the fastest case of Stockholm Syndrome I've ever come across. For all intents and purposes, Bastian kidnapped her. Sure, we the readers know it's for Myst and the baby's safety from the evil Razorbacks, but she certainly doesn't know that, therefore I found her reactions extremely unrealistic and bizarre to the situations she was in. One minute she's fighting, and by fighting I mean being stubbornly spunky, or somewhat thinking of escape, the next she's imagining wild, hot monkey sex with Bastian. I'm sorry but if some big, six-foot-six (apparently every male is 6'6 in this book, even the human cop. Obviously, if a guy is under that height, he's not really a man.), scary dude who can turn into a dragon kidnaps me, I am so not going to be thinking about how hot they are or what they're like in the sack. Yeah, uh-huh, that makes perfect sense. Oy! Anyway, they end up making out that night due to Bastian's alpha going crazy and some supernatural roofie that dragons put out to females. God, this is not romantic at all. And it's only been a few hours since they "met"! The morning after Myst is kidnapped, she wakes up naked and finds out Bastian bathed her, can you say mondo creepy? So after she dresses, she goes meandering through the Nightfury's lair, admiring his artwork and crap, then ends up in the kitchen with the rest of the freaky-tall Nightfuries. I'd be high-tailing it out of there, in fact, I would have been plotting escape long before this point. It appears she only thinks of escape once a day. While she's in the kitchen, Bastian has her sit at the table so she can eat her breakfast. He sets down a plate in front of her and as she goes to have a bite, she notices he cut her waffles into little, perfect, bite-size pieces and she's apparently overcome by this act. How weird is that?! All feminist angles aside, who cuts up someone else's food unless: A, it's for a small child, two, their arms and hands are broken, or D, they're handicapped in some way that prevents them from feeding themselves? W.T.F.? Frankly, I think it's just odd. And then she gets misty-eyed (Myst is all misty, how cute. *gag*) when he asks her to help name the baby he kidnapped. I've already doubted her sanity before but now it's gone to even more ridiculous heights by this point.
The magical Rohypnol I mentioned before creeped me the heck out. So when a dragon guy needs his energy fix, he picks out a woman, roofies her, feeds off her energy, sleeps with her, and then wipes her memory! Say what? That's too close to rape for my liking. This wasn't just the bad guys doing this, but the next book's "hero" did that to a woman in a hospital (note: she wasn't a patient, I think she was a researcher or something, I don't remember). How sweet.
The excessive swearing needed edited down. Normally I don't mind a little cursing here and there, but so much of it didn't need to be added to the dialogue or characters and showed a lack of creativity.
The "dragons" are really shape-shifting vampires. They have to feed off women, only it's energy instead of blood, they can't be out in the sun, they heal quickly, live a long time, are super-strong, amongst other attributes. If you're going to have shape-shifting dragons, don't make them so similar to other paranormal species. Differentiate them so they're unique, not a near-clone.
I didn't like the whole reading of minds thing. If it was something that happened when mated, fine, but I don't like the thought of someone just arbitrarily getting into someone else's brain whenever they want. It's a violation. Bastian did this to Myst way too often.
The characters sound a lot like each other. They don't all have individual voices so there isn't much beyond a name separating one from the other.
<b>THE GOOD</b>
The first fight scene was actually quite well-done, although it was very early on in the book so it might not hold up on a second reading. The next fight scene wasn't too bad, maybe a little confusing at times.
The other characters in the Dragonfury series have the potential to be more interesting if they can be given some individuality, but since I didn't connect with the author's writing style and don't like most of the ideas, I won't be looking for any sequels to this oh-so-romantic series. I wouldn't recommend this book, but hey, if it sounds right up your alley or you have masochistic tendencies, by all means try it out for yourself.
As a final note, I just wanted to thank <a href="http://homealone.wikia.com/wiki/Buzz_McCallister"; target="_blank">Buzz McCallister</a> for his mad counting/alphabetizing skillz in writing this review. I couldn't have done it without you, buddy.
<img src="http://kindbooksandcoronets.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/buzzmccallister1.jpg">;
During the course of reading, everyone comes across a book that just doesn't connect with them. That doesn't mean the book is bad or that others shouldn't read it, it just means the it isn't a good fit that particular person. This is that book for me. I had a very difficult time getting through what I read, mostly due to a bunch of little things that stood out and were what I consider oddities, especially in context to situations in the book. If I had to describe this book in one word, it'd be abrasive. The characters, the dialogue, and most importantly, the writing felt like rubbing sandpaper over a wound. Over and over again.
<b>THE BAD</b>
The constant bombardment of internalizing that both Myst and Bastian provide in this book was like a splinter under my fingernail. The more I dug, the more painful it became, and I started to dislike the book and main characters more and more as I read on. Admittedly, it was pretty easy to loathe Bastian and Myst when it became apparent that they are both boring and stupid, and I didn't find Bastian all that likeable in the first place. Call me crazy, but I just feel uneasy when a character wants to immediately jump the bones of a person he just met in horrific situation while she is frightened beyond belief. But apparently that's okay because he acknowledges his creepiness in a fit of mental self-flagellation. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. Maybe if that had been mentioned only once, I would have let it slide, but it keeps on like that for way too long. Apparently he's all alpha on the outside and emo on the inside. What a winning combination! Not. Myst herself starts off, uh, decent enough but then quickly becomes the nitwit I was hoping to avoid. She gets the fastest case of Stockholm Syndrome I've ever come across. For all intents and purposes, Bastian kidnapped her. Sure, we the readers know it's for Myst and the baby's safety from the evil Razorbacks, but she certainly doesn't know that, therefore I found her reactions extremely unrealistic and bizarre to the situations she was in. One minute she's fighting, and by fighting I mean being stubbornly spunky, or somewhat thinking of escape, the next she's imagining wild, hot monkey sex with Bastian. I'm sorry but if some big, six-foot-six (apparently every male is 6'6 in this book, even the human cop. Obviously, if a guy is under that height, he's not really a man.), scary dude who can turn into a dragon kidnaps me, I am so not going to be thinking about how hot they are or what they're like in the sack. Yeah, uh-huh, that makes perfect sense. Oy! Anyway, they end up making out that night due to Bastian's alpha going crazy and some supernatural roofie that dragons put out to females. God, this is not romantic at all. And it's only been a few hours since they "met"! The morning after Myst is kidnapped, she wakes up naked and finds out Bastian bathed her, can you say mondo creepy? So after she dresses, she goes meandering through the Nightfury's lair, admiring his artwork and crap, then ends up in the kitchen with the rest of the freaky-tall Nightfuries. I'd be high-tailing it out of there, in fact, I would have been plotting escape long before this point. It appears she only thinks of escape once a day. While she's in the kitchen, Bastian has her sit at the table so she can eat her breakfast. He sets down a plate in front of her and as she goes to have a bite, she notices he cut her waffles into little, perfect, bite-size pieces and she's apparently overcome by this act. How weird is that?! All feminist angles aside, who cuts up someone else's food unless: A, it's for a small child, two, their arms and hands are broken, or D, they're handicapped in some way that prevents them from feeding themselves? W.T.F.? Frankly, I think it's just odd. And then she gets misty-eyed (Myst is all misty, how cute. *gag*) when he asks her to help name the baby he kidnapped. I've already doubted her sanity before but now it's gone to even more ridiculous heights by this point.
The magical Rohypnol I mentioned before creeped me the heck out. So when a dragon guy needs his energy fix, he picks out a woman, roofies her, feeds off her energy, sleeps with her, and then wipes her memory! Say what? That's too close to rape for my liking. This wasn't just the bad guys doing this, but the next book's "hero" did that to a woman in a hospital (note: she wasn't a patient, I think she was a researcher or something, I don't remember). How sweet.
The excessive swearing needed edited down. Normally I don't mind a little cursing here and there, but so much of it didn't need to be added to the dialogue or characters and showed a lack of creativity.
The "dragons" are really shape-shifting vampires. They have to feed off women, only it's energy instead of blood, they can't be out in the sun, they heal quickly, live a long time, are super-strong, amongst other attributes. If you're going to have shape-shifting dragons, don't make them so similar to other paranormal species. Differentiate them so they're unique, not a near-clone.
I didn't like the whole reading of minds thing. If it was something that happened when mated, fine, but I don't like the thought of someone just arbitrarily getting into someone else's brain whenever they want. It's a violation. Bastian did this to Myst way too often.
The characters sound a lot like each other. They don't all have individual voices so there isn't much beyond a name separating one from the other.
<b>THE GOOD</b>
The first fight scene was actually quite well-done, although it was very early on in the book so it might not hold up on a second reading. The next fight scene wasn't too bad, maybe a little confusing at times.
The other characters in the Dragonfury series have the potential to be more interesting if they can be given some individuality, but since I didn't connect with the author's writing style and don't like most of the ideas, I won't be looking for any sequels to this oh-so-romantic series. I wouldn't recommend this book, but hey, if it sounds right up your alley or you have masochistic tendencies, by all means try it out for yourself.
As a final note, I just wanted to thank <a href="http://homealone.wikia.com/wiki/Buzz_McCallister"; target="_blank">Buzz McCallister</a> for his mad counting/alphabetizing skillz in writing this review. I couldn't have done it without you, buddy.
<img src="http://kindbooksandcoronets.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/buzzmccallister1.jpg">;
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Taken (Celestial Blues, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Even though I'm not especially fond of angels, I decided to try out this new series based on my previous experiences with Vicki Pettersson's work. Sadly, after an intriguing first chapter, any enjoyment I may have expected never came knocking (guess it was too busy knockin' on heaven's door).
Meet one of the two main characters, rockabilly girl Katherine "Kit" Craig. She's an eternally optimistic and peppy reporter whose best friend and co-worker, Nicole, was just murdered while following a lead. Our other MC is a haunted Centurion angel named Griffin Shaw who ushers the newly murdered into the afterlife, otherwise known as the Everlast, while bemoaning the murders of both himself and his wife Evie back in 1960. After making a mistake concerning Nicole, he's been sent back to earth as a human with some angelic senses still intact. Kit and Grif soon meet up and begin investigating the circumstances around Nicole's death, whilst Griffin seeks out any details involving his own.
Problem Number One:
The Cardboard Characters
Character development is supposed to unfold over the course of a book, in this case it actually appeared to deteriorate as the book went on. Kit never developed into anything but one of those annoyingly chipper people you just want to hit with a sledgehammer, while Grif started promisingly enough but then stagnated. They were both very shallow characterizations, and on top of that, I never understood Kit's actions or reactions to just about anything. I never felt her sadness about her best friend's death, whom she rarely gave a passing thought, believed she was smart (by the end, I thought her a dolt), or seem in any way human with nary a rational thought in her head. About mid-way through the book, Grif tells her he's an angel after they kiss, so what does she do? Does she a) run away screaming, b) think he's a few feathers short of a goose and tell him to get hell out of her house and life, or c) have a calm Q&A session followed by giving him a whatfor that consists of "I won't kiss you again" and "you're watching me walk out that door (in her own house) because you can't handle any emotion blah, blah, blah by pretending you're an angel" and then proceed to attend a charity event wherein she acts and converses normally, like nothing happened? If you picked "c" *ding ding ding*, you're a winner! Because as we all know, any sensible guy will pull out the "I'm an angel" trick and expect a woman to believe him. *rolls eyes* Never was it ever crystal clear if Kit thought Grif was either crazy or a liar. It was all a bit hazy, but what can you expect from someone we're never allowed to know? All we discern is she dresses and lives (somewhat) rockabilly, but it's all a veneer to her hollowness inside, which led me to dub her Rockabilly Barbie.
<img src="http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj183/piscesrain/reviews/RockabillyBarbie.jpg">;
Because that's all she is and nothing more. The only character that I found a little more well-rounded was the secondary character Bridget Moore and the two Centurions introduced close to the end. Everyone else was either forgettably two-dimensional or they were a caricature, a la Caleb Chambers and Paul Raggio.
Problem Number Two:
The Relationship(s)
I'm expected to believe in a possible relationship between Grif and Rockabilly Barbie, err I mean Kit, but there's not much there to believe in. Like the characters, it was shallow with the same descriptions reiterated over and over again. Basically it's a case of telling instead of showing. I felt no love, maybe some attraction, but that's all she wrote. Likewise I never bought that Kit and Paul could ever have gotten far enough to be married, they were just too different. Most people don't do a 180 after they get married, the seed of who Paul really was deep down inside would have already been there and if Kit was even a fraction astute, she should have caught that. All this served was to be a plot point in the book.
Problem Number Three:
The Plot(s)
The main plot involving Nicole's death and Chambers had a "been there, done that" quality to it. The plot didn't shock me or seem like anything new, I've come across the same before or at least plots that were very close, and it wasn't even told in a fresh way. So I wasn't as affected by anything in the book as I probably should have been, partially due to the indifference I felt and the fact that I figured out everything long before the author dropped, what I guess she thought, were informational bombshells.
The book had three major plotlines: Grif and Evie's deaths, Nicole's death/prostitution ring, and Grif and the Pure Anas' philosophical moments. They weren't juggled well at all. Ms. Pettersson should have picked only one and paid more attention to developing that specific plot and the characters. The scenes with Anas (or Anne) especially didn't mesh with the other stories and felt as if the author was overreaching the boundaries set up by the book. One scene in particular was extremely bizarre and pointless to the book as a whole.
Where was the noir? I've seen enough film noirs to know it ain't here.
Problem Number Four:
The Ending
What happened at the end is what I'd expect in a book that's exclusively romance and not in a mystery/urban fantasy hybrid, which made the rushed ending seem even more ridiculous and sappy. It was incredibly unbelievable to the story and didn't seem to set up the next book in any way. Also, one of the plotlines was all but left dangling with no foreshadowing or anything. Poor, poor, poor execution. Don't expound on a storyline if you're not going to finish it up or at least leave it dangling in a way that makes the reader want to come back. All that boring set-up for a completely stupid and cheesy ending. I expected rainbows and unicorns to pop out at any moment.
Overall the book felt more like a rough copy than a finished one and definitely could have used a few more goings over. Several descriptions were rushed and chaotic or simply poorly done so that I was scrambling to picture what was going on. The book is almost 400 pages and it is simply too long. With so many storylines, I'm not sure how they managed to both crawl and have very little action at the same time. I was going to give this two stars because I didn't hate the book, that would imply that it elicited any feelings what-so-ever, but the truth of the matter is that there isn't one thing I really liked about the book either. The only way I'd read a sequel to the bafflingly-named Celestial Blues series is if it featured different leads like the aforementioned Centurions, and even then I'd cautiously dip my toes into the book.
Originally reviewed: June 29
Received: Amazon Vine
Meet one of the two main characters, rockabilly girl Katherine "Kit" Craig. She's an eternally optimistic and peppy reporter whose best friend and co-worker, Nicole, was just murdered while following a lead. Our other MC is a haunted Centurion angel named Griffin Shaw who ushers the newly murdered into the afterlife, otherwise known as the Everlast, while bemoaning the murders of both himself and his wife Evie back in 1960. After making a mistake concerning Nicole, he's been sent back to earth as a human with some angelic senses still intact. Kit and Grif soon meet up and begin investigating the circumstances around Nicole's death, whilst Griffin seeks out any details involving his own.
Problem Number One:
The Cardboard Characters
Character development is supposed to unfold over the course of a book, in this case it actually appeared to deteriorate as the book went on. Kit never developed into anything but one of those annoyingly chipper people you just want to hit with a sledgehammer, while Grif started promisingly enough but then stagnated. They were both very shallow characterizations, and on top of that, I never understood Kit's actions or reactions to just about anything. I never felt her sadness about her best friend's death, whom she rarely gave a passing thought, believed she was smart (by the end, I thought her a dolt), or seem in any way human with nary a rational thought in her head. About mid-way through the book, Grif tells her he's an angel after they kiss, so what does she do? Does she a) run away screaming, b) think he's a few feathers short of a goose and tell him to get hell out of her house and life, or c) have a calm Q&A session followed by giving him a whatfor that consists of "I won't kiss you again" and "you're watching me walk out that door (in her own house) because you can't handle any emotion blah, blah, blah by pretending you're an angel" and then proceed to attend a charity event wherein she acts and converses normally, like nothing happened? If you picked "c" *ding ding ding*, you're a winner! Because as we all know, any sensible guy will pull out the "I'm an angel" trick and expect a woman to believe him. *rolls eyes* Never was it ever crystal clear if Kit thought Grif was either crazy or a liar. It was all a bit hazy, but what can you expect from someone we're never allowed to know? All we discern is she dresses and lives (somewhat) rockabilly, but it's all a veneer to her hollowness inside, which led me to dub her Rockabilly Barbie.
<img src="http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj183/piscesrain/reviews/RockabillyBarbie.jpg">;
Because that's all she is and nothing more. The only character that I found a little more well-rounded was the secondary character Bridget Moore and the two Centurions introduced close to the end. Everyone else was either forgettably two-dimensional or they were a caricature, a la Caleb Chambers and Paul Raggio.
Problem Number Two:
The Relationship(s)
I'm expected to believe in a possible relationship between Grif and Rockabilly Barbie, err I mean Kit, but there's not much there to believe in. Like the characters, it was shallow with the same descriptions reiterated over and over again. Basically it's a case of telling instead of showing. I felt no love, maybe some attraction, but that's all she wrote. Likewise I never bought that Kit and Paul could ever have gotten far enough to be married, they were just too different. Most people don't do a 180 after they get married, the seed of who Paul really was deep down inside would have already been there and if Kit was even a fraction astute, she should have caught that. All this served was to be a plot point in the book.
Problem Number Three:
The Plot(s)
The main plot involving Nicole's death and Chambers had a "been there, done that" quality to it. The plot didn't shock me or seem like anything new, I've come across the same before or at least plots that were very close, and it wasn't even told in a fresh way. So I wasn't as affected by anything in the book as I probably should have been, partially due to the indifference I felt and the fact that I figured out everything long before the author dropped, what I guess she thought, were informational bombshells.
The book had three major plotlines: Grif and Evie's deaths, Nicole's death/prostitution ring, and Grif and the Pure Anas' philosophical moments. They weren't juggled well at all. Ms. Pettersson should have picked only one and paid more attention to developing that specific plot and the characters. The scenes with Anas (or Anne) especially didn't mesh with the other stories and felt as if the author was overreaching the boundaries set up by the book. One scene in particular was extremely bizarre and pointless to the book as a whole.
Where was the noir? I've seen enough film noirs to know it ain't here.
Problem Number Four:
The Ending
What happened at the end is what I'd expect in a book that's exclusively romance and not in a mystery/urban fantasy hybrid, which made the rushed ending seem even more ridiculous and sappy. It was incredibly unbelievable to the story and didn't seem to set up the next book in any way. Also, one of the plotlines was all but left dangling with no foreshadowing or anything. Poor, poor, poor execution. Don't expound on a storyline if you're not going to finish it up or at least leave it dangling in a way that makes the reader want to come back. All that boring set-up for a completely stupid and cheesy ending. I expected rainbows and unicorns to pop out at any moment.
Overall the book felt more like a rough copy than a finished one and definitely could have used a few more goings over. Several descriptions were rushed and chaotic or simply poorly done so that I was scrambling to picture what was going on. The book is almost 400 pages and it is simply too long. With so many storylines, I'm not sure how they managed to both crawl and have very little action at the same time. I was going to give this two stars because I didn't hate the book, that would imply that it elicited any feelings what-so-ever, but the truth of the matter is that there isn't one thing I really liked about the book either. The only way I'd read a sequel to the bafflingly-named Celestial Blues series is if it featured different leads like the aforementioned Centurions, and even then I'd cautiously dip my toes into the book.
Originally reviewed: June 29
Received: Amazon Vine
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated The Life of Pablo by Kanye West in Music
Jun 7, 2019
Kanye West is an iconic rapper from Chicago, Illinois. Not too long ago, he released his seventh studio album, entitled, “The Life of Pablo“.
ULTRA LIGHT BEAMS
The opening track functions as a Sunday-morning church revival, where Kanye is the ordained minister. He’s standing in the pulpit, preaching a time-sensitive sermon to his loyal congregation.
His message: God over Satan, keep the faith, pray for Paris, pray for parents, and we’re living God’s dream.
West sets the tone and declares where he stands on religious and socially-driven issues.
A Gospel choir emerges. The Dream and Kelly Price reinforce West’s message by singing verses of encouragement, leading to a heartfelt testimonial by Chance The Rapper.
While the collection plates are being filled with hopes of a better tomorrow, Kirk Franklin concludes the service by praying for everyone. He uplifts those who feel they are not good enough or have said, “I’m sorry,” too many times.
Father Stretch My Hands (Pt. 1)
A spiritual figure, Pastor T.L. Barrett, ushers in the second track with praises to The Most High. Future appears for a brief moment and Kid Cudi delivers a stunning chorus.
A liberated West returns to the pulpit and gives a brief, but somewhat explicit testimony of his past and present relationships to Amber Rose and Kim Kardashian.
Father Stretch My Hands (Pt. 2)
West continues his testimony and raps about his personal experiences. He speaks on the importance of returning his wife’s phone calls and not wanting to make the same mistakes his father made. Also, he mentions the passing of the mother in Hollywood, being broke, and the reason why he broke his jaw.
West’s words hit home, making room for another liberated soul to tell his story of triumph.
Desiigner, a newly-signed artist of G.O.O.D. Music, emerges from the underbelly of the ghetto. He raps about getting money illegally, drugs, and violence-familiarized by urban-street hustlers.
Though his grim subject matter contradicts the song’s hopeful message of liberation, it somehow adds mysticism or substance to Kanye’s brutally-honest testimony.
Desiigner, blessed with a futuristic flow, highlights a few things that West’s congregation needs to examine in order to be totally liberated.
FAMOUS
Whenever an important event occurs in an urban community, an after party is sure to follow. And a host of celebrities are always on standby to attend it. The Life of Pablo is no exception.
The fourth song features Rihanna and legendary-producer Swizz Beatz. Also, it contains timeless vocals from Sister Nancy and Nina Simone.
West, no longer in church clothes, stands out lyrically with witty, braggadocios lyrics.
Whether that statement is factual or not, it’s doesn’t really matter because West believes it is.
FEEDBACK
The fifth song serves as a transformational period, where West shows signs of the old Kanye.
West doesn’t need a psychiatrist to diagnose his problems. He does that himself by wearing them on his sleeves.
LOW LIGHTS
On the sixth track, West wrote via Twitter, “I put Low Lights on my album just thinking about all the moms driving their kids to school, then going to work.”
Listeners can now relate to the everyday struggle that mothers endure.
The song features an acapella sample from “So Alive” by Kings of Tomorrow.
The woman gives a grateful-testimony of God’s graciousness over a laid-back, simple piano groove. Her honesty is felt. Also, she sounds liberated because her Creator has accepted her for who she is.
HIGH LIGHTS
From lows to high, the seventh track is in direct correlation to “Low Lights”.
West and Young Thug put on their festive robes because it’s time to celebrate life. El Debarge and The Dream chime in, and West addresses a lingering issue.
But this is only the beginning. West finishes strong with more thought-provoking lyrics.
FREESTYLE 4
The eighth track features Desiigner. Again, when he and West are together, all hell breaks loose.
The once festive scene transforms into a grimy underworld filled with a prostitute that West is explicitly lusting after. The temptation makes it difficult for him to stand on his opening statement of Jesus over Satan. But the power of darkness is more powerful than West thinks. So, he subconsciously indulges in sexual misconduct.
I LOVE KANYE
On the ninth track, West realizes that he’s at war with himself. The old Kanye, known for chopping up soul records is fighting against the new Kanye that everyone hates. But Kanye wants to go back to being sweet again if that’s even possible. His multiple egos are fighting for control over the ‘real’ Kanye.
WAVE
West doesn’t stare in the mirror for too long. On the tenth track, redemption happens. Chris Brown, disguised as an angel, comes to West’s aid by providing much-needed light.
Miraculously, the sun emerges from the shade, a bird flies out its cage, and a nostalgic feeling is felt.
West realizes that nothing is impossible because waves don’t die and feelings don’t really go away.
FML (FOR MY LADY)
On the eleventh track, West realizes what’s really important to him and that’s his wife. Someone he won’t jeopardize for no other woman. Also, his children are all layers of his soul.
The Weeknd appears in the form of West’s conscience.
West remains focused and listeners can feel the positive aura of God surrounding him. He is determined to remain faithful to only Kim, no other woman.
REAL FRIENDS
West continues his introspective outlook and raps about trust issues that everyone can relate to. His honest, down-to-earth lyrics, mixed in with Ty Dolla $ign’s vocals, paints a vivid picture. Also, it forms a collectible souvenir that hangs nicely in listeners’ collective memories.
WOLVES
The thirteenth track provides a cooling effect with wild emotions and bizarre-sounds.
The setting, maybe an extraterritorial realm in West’s subconscious mind. Perhaps, it’s the Milky Way Galaxy or a dream-state of Saturn.
A time for relaxation, preparing listeners for a surprise guest.
SILVER SURFER INTERMISSION
The fourteenth track features a phone conversation between incarcerated Max B and French Montana. Also, Max voices his gratitude to West for showing him love.
30 HOURS
On the fifteenth track, West takes a trip down memory lane and raps about an ex-girlfriend that he used to drive 30-hours to see. He used to drive from Chicago to St. Louis, St. Louis to Chicago. He recalls the good times they shared. But unfortunately, her infidelity was the reason why they broke up.
NO PARTIES IN L.A.
The sixteenth track will go down in history as a legendary bar-fest between two elite emcees. Kendrick Lamar and West rap with dope punchlines and clever metaphors over a Madlib-produced track. Once again, West is flowing like the old Kanye that people love.
FACTS
The seventeenth track is a standout anthem where West brags that Yeezy just jumped over Jumpman. He’s in boss-mode, talking that big-money talk.
FADE
The final track features Post Malone and Ty Dollar $ign. The song has a reoccurring sample from Rare Earth, “Your love is fading/I feel it fade.”
The Eli Linnetz-directed video shows Teyana Taylor explicitly dancing.
CONCLUSION
Kanye West’s “The Life of Pablo” is a memorable hip-hop album with solid content and heavy replay value.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/kanye-west-life-pablo/
ULTRA LIGHT BEAMS
The opening track functions as a Sunday-morning church revival, where Kanye is the ordained minister. He’s standing in the pulpit, preaching a time-sensitive sermon to his loyal congregation.
His message: God over Satan, keep the faith, pray for Paris, pray for parents, and we’re living God’s dream.
West sets the tone and declares where he stands on religious and socially-driven issues.
A Gospel choir emerges. The Dream and Kelly Price reinforce West’s message by singing verses of encouragement, leading to a heartfelt testimonial by Chance The Rapper.
While the collection plates are being filled with hopes of a better tomorrow, Kirk Franklin concludes the service by praying for everyone. He uplifts those who feel they are not good enough or have said, “I’m sorry,” too many times.
Father Stretch My Hands (Pt. 1)
A spiritual figure, Pastor T.L. Barrett, ushers in the second track with praises to The Most High. Future appears for a brief moment and Kid Cudi delivers a stunning chorus.
A liberated West returns to the pulpit and gives a brief, but somewhat explicit testimony of his past and present relationships to Amber Rose and Kim Kardashian.
Father Stretch My Hands (Pt. 2)
West continues his testimony and raps about his personal experiences. He speaks on the importance of returning his wife’s phone calls and not wanting to make the same mistakes his father made. Also, he mentions the passing of the mother in Hollywood, being broke, and the reason why he broke his jaw.
West’s words hit home, making room for another liberated soul to tell his story of triumph.
Desiigner, a newly-signed artist of G.O.O.D. Music, emerges from the underbelly of the ghetto. He raps about getting money illegally, drugs, and violence-familiarized by urban-street hustlers.
Though his grim subject matter contradicts the song’s hopeful message of liberation, it somehow adds mysticism or substance to Kanye’s brutally-honest testimony.
Desiigner, blessed with a futuristic flow, highlights a few things that West’s congregation needs to examine in order to be totally liberated.
FAMOUS
Whenever an important event occurs in an urban community, an after party is sure to follow. And a host of celebrities are always on standby to attend it. The Life of Pablo is no exception.
The fourth song features Rihanna and legendary-producer Swizz Beatz. Also, it contains timeless vocals from Sister Nancy and Nina Simone.
West, no longer in church clothes, stands out lyrically with witty, braggadocios lyrics.
Whether that statement is factual or not, it’s doesn’t really matter because West believes it is.
FEEDBACK
The fifth song serves as a transformational period, where West shows signs of the old Kanye.
West doesn’t need a psychiatrist to diagnose his problems. He does that himself by wearing them on his sleeves.
LOW LIGHTS
On the sixth track, West wrote via Twitter, “I put Low Lights on my album just thinking about all the moms driving their kids to school, then going to work.”
Listeners can now relate to the everyday struggle that mothers endure.
The song features an acapella sample from “So Alive” by Kings of Tomorrow.
The woman gives a grateful-testimony of God’s graciousness over a laid-back, simple piano groove. Her honesty is felt. Also, she sounds liberated because her Creator has accepted her for who she is.
HIGH LIGHTS
From lows to high, the seventh track is in direct correlation to “Low Lights”.
West and Young Thug put on their festive robes because it’s time to celebrate life. El Debarge and The Dream chime in, and West addresses a lingering issue.
But this is only the beginning. West finishes strong with more thought-provoking lyrics.
FREESTYLE 4
The eighth track features Desiigner. Again, when he and West are together, all hell breaks loose.
The once festive scene transforms into a grimy underworld filled with a prostitute that West is explicitly lusting after. The temptation makes it difficult for him to stand on his opening statement of Jesus over Satan. But the power of darkness is more powerful than West thinks. So, he subconsciously indulges in sexual misconduct.
I LOVE KANYE
On the ninth track, West realizes that he’s at war with himself. The old Kanye, known for chopping up soul records is fighting against the new Kanye that everyone hates. But Kanye wants to go back to being sweet again if that’s even possible. His multiple egos are fighting for control over the ‘real’ Kanye.
WAVE
West doesn’t stare in the mirror for too long. On the tenth track, redemption happens. Chris Brown, disguised as an angel, comes to West’s aid by providing much-needed light.
Miraculously, the sun emerges from the shade, a bird flies out its cage, and a nostalgic feeling is felt.
West realizes that nothing is impossible because waves don’t die and feelings don’t really go away.
FML (FOR MY LADY)
On the eleventh track, West realizes what’s really important to him and that’s his wife. Someone he won’t jeopardize for no other woman. Also, his children are all layers of his soul.
The Weeknd appears in the form of West’s conscience.
West remains focused and listeners can feel the positive aura of God surrounding him. He is determined to remain faithful to only Kim, no other woman.
REAL FRIENDS
West continues his introspective outlook and raps about trust issues that everyone can relate to. His honest, down-to-earth lyrics, mixed in with Ty Dolla $ign’s vocals, paints a vivid picture. Also, it forms a collectible souvenir that hangs nicely in listeners’ collective memories.
WOLVES
The thirteenth track provides a cooling effect with wild emotions and bizarre-sounds.
The setting, maybe an extraterritorial realm in West’s subconscious mind. Perhaps, it’s the Milky Way Galaxy or a dream-state of Saturn.
A time for relaxation, preparing listeners for a surprise guest.
SILVER SURFER INTERMISSION
The fourteenth track features a phone conversation between incarcerated Max B and French Montana. Also, Max voices his gratitude to West for showing him love.
30 HOURS
On the fifteenth track, West takes a trip down memory lane and raps about an ex-girlfriend that he used to drive 30-hours to see. He used to drive from Chicago to St. Louis, St. Louis to Chicago. He recalls the good times they shared. But unfortunately, her infidelity was the reason why they broke up.
NO PARTIES IN L.A.
The sixteenth track will go down in history as a legendary bar-fest between two elite emcees. Kendrick Lamar and West rap with dope punchlines and clever metaphors over a Madlib-produced track. Once again, West is flowing like the old Kanye that people love.
FACTS
The seventeenth track is a standout anthem where West brags that Yeezy just jumped over Jumpman. He’s in boss-mode, talking that big-money talk.
FADE
The final track features Post Malone and Ty Dollar $ign. The song has a reoccurring sample from Rare Earth, “Your love is fading/I feel it fade.”
The Eli Linnetz-directed video shows Teyana Taylor explicitly dancing.
CONCLUSION
Kanye West’s “The Life of Pablo” is a memorable hip-hop album with solid content and heavy replay value.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/kanye-west-life-pablo/