Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
Writing (3 more)
Characters
Inconsistencies
Not a horror book, as marketed
What if a powerful virus was released in the air? What if you had to be tested for it every time you tried to walk into a building? Does this sound a little familiar? What if I told you this scenario was written about back in 2010?
In her novel Feed, writer Mira Grant gives readers this very scenario of an airborne, blood transferred virus; something that seems very familiar in today's environment and day-to-day living- - - just minus the zombies.
Grant started out as an urban fantasy writer known as Seanan McGuire, with her first full-length novel being Rosemary and Rue. She received the 2010 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, as well as many other awards for her work in fiction. There are four books in the Newsflash series (Feed being the first of these).
We meet our main characters, Georgia and Shaun, while they're out in the 'field' filming some zombies for their blog. Shaun is the more careless one, as we witness him poking at zombies with his hockey stick. The two suddenly have to leave when the zombies become a pack. This is where it gets a little strange- - -Georgia explains to the readers that when zombies are in a pack, they become stronger and somehow smarter, but throughout the rest of the book, it's never really explained how this happens.
In this world, blogging and your view count determines your quality of life. Georgia and Shaun have spent years making their blog- - - After the End Times- - - into a popular blog. Every blogger's dream is to be picked to follow the campaign trail of any upcoming politician, and that is exactly what happens to our main characters. Unfortunately, this is when the book turns into a political thriller- - - this happens within the first fifty pages. Zombies end up taking a backseat from here-on-out.
We still get to learn about the virus (Kellis-Amberlee) throughout the book. We're told that any animal that weighs more than 40 pounds is capable of having the virus, and that some people are even born with a dormant-type of the virus inside of them, but this is also never explained in the entire story, at least in book one. Georgia makes it quite clear throughout the novel that she is completely against anyone owning pets that weigh over 40 pounds, but this is due-to her family having lost their younger son to a pet that went viral. This becomes extremely repetitive. Every time that an animal is brought up or seen, Georgia has to retell her stance on owning pets, when once or twice was enough to let the readers know where she stands on the subject.
There are moments of zombie attacks- - - such as after a political rally in a small town where Georgia and her crew are following Senator Ryman on his race to become President, when bodyguards are attacked by a small group of the undead, and Georgia and Shaun become cornered by a few of them- - - these scenes read as if to just keep the zombie trope going, not to actually make the story better. Grant continually repeats herself throughout the book, and because of this, the story didn't have to be as long as it is. Such as with these few zombie attacks, the reader never feels much danger for the characters. And I found that the characters turn out to just not be that likable.
One such character that had potential is Buffy; the backbone of the After the End Times blog. Scenes that were meant to make the reader care for her fell short. Unlike scenes with Georgia and Shaun, including the bond between them, is not felt with Buffy's scenes; she merely seems like a filler character to make certain parts of the story make sense by constantly disappearing and reappearing wherever need be.
Georgia does have an interesting quirk in the book. She harbors the dormant Kellis-Amberlee virus, which has effected her eyes. She can't be in bright lights because they give her blinding headaches, so she wears sunglasses nearly everywhere: " I collapsed onto our bed at the local four-star hotel a little after dawn, my aching eyes already squeezed shut. Shaun was a bit steadier on his feet and he stayed upright long enough to make sure the room's blackout curtains were drawn. "
The technical side of the story - - - the computer world and the electronic usage- - - in Feed is done pretty well. It's like the movie Nightcrawler meets 28 Days Later, but with a lot less zombies. We get to see the seedy underbelly of journalism- - - where bloggers are willing to do anything to get their view count high. Readers also get to witness how life is like living in a world held hostage by a virus - - -something that is very relatable today.
Georgia constantly reminds readers that she doesn't care about other people, and that Shaun is the only person she cares for- - - and, of course, the view count. She continually blames her lack of empathy on their adoptive parents, stating that they only took them in for the their own blog view counts. Oddly after such information, Shaun doesn't seem to be the immature one in the duo.
I haven't read the other three books, one which is a republishing of Feed, but from a different point-of-view. This story was disguised as a horror novel, but just ended up being a political thriller with some zombies thrown in for a much wider reading audience. The book skims over what life would be like after a devastating virus takes over, but focuses on what politics would be like. I can't recommend Feed as a horror novel; the tagline is also misleading: " 'The good news: we survived. The bad news: so did they. " Unless Grant was talking about politicians....
I didn't give the story a low rating because it wasn't exactly a horror book, but instead for these reasons: throughout the story, Grant repeats a lot of information that was explained earlier in the book (and only needed to be explained once); she also had inconsistencies throughout, sometimes even in the very next sentence. Adding things that needed to be explained which weren't, and the afterthoughts that broke up the flow of the story, I just couldn't enjoy it. But, if you like political thrillers, then you might like this one. I won't be continuing this series.
In her novel Feed, writer Mira Grant gives readers this very scenario of an airborne, blood transferred virus; something that seems very familiar in today's environment and day-to-day living- - - just minus the zombies.
Grant started out as an urban fantasy writer known as Seanan McGuire, with her first full-length novel being Rosemary and Rue. She received the 2010 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, as well as many other awards for her work in fiction. There are four books in the Newsflash series (Feed being the first of these).
We meet our main characters, Georgia and Shaun, while they're out in the 'field' filming some zombies for their blog. Shaun is the more careless one, as we witness him poking at zombies with his hockey stick. The two suddenly have to leave when the zombies become a pack. This is where it gets a little strange- - -Georgia explains to the readers that when zombies are in a pack, they become stronger and somehow smarter, but throughout the rest of the book, it's never really explained how this happens.
In this world, blogging and your view count determines your quality of life. Georgia and Shaun have spent years making their blog- - - After the End Times- - - into a popular blog. Every blogger's dream is to be picked to follow the campaign trail of any upcoming politician, and that is exactly what happens to our main characters. Unfortunately, this is when the book turns into a political thriller- - - this happens within the first fifty pages. Zombies end up taking a backseat from here-on-out.
We still get to learn about the virus (Kellis-Amberlee) throughout the book. We're told that any animal that weighs more than 40 pounds is capable of having the virus, and that some people are even born with a dormant-type of the virus inside of them, but this is also never explained in the entire story, at least in book one. Georgia makes it quite clear throughout the novel that she is completely against anyone owning pets that weigh over 40 pounds, but this is due-to her family having lost their younger son to a pet that went viral. This becomes extremely repetitive. Every time that an animal is brought up or seen, Georgia has to retell her stance on owning pets, when once or twice was enough to let the readers know where she stands on the subject.
There are moments of zombie attacks- - - such as after a political rally in a small town where Georgia and her crew are following Senator Ryman on his race to become President, when bodyguards are attacked by a small group of the undead, and Georgia and Shaun become cornered by a few of them- - - these scenes read as if to just keep the zombie trope going, not to actually make the story better. Grant continually repeats herself throughout the book, and because of this, the story didn't have to be as long as it is. Such as with these few zombie attacks, the reader never feels much danger for the characters. And I found that the characters turn out to just not be that likable.
One such character that had potential is Buffy; the backbone of the After the End Times blog. Scenes that were meant to make the reader care for her fell short. Unlike scenes with Georgia and Shaun, including the bond between them, is not felt with Buffy's scenes; she merely seems like a filler character to make certain parts of the story make sense by constantly disappearing and reappearing wherever need be.
Georgia does have an interesting quirk in the book. She harbors the dormant Kellis-Amberlee virus, which has effected her eyes. She can't be in bright lights because they give her blinding headaches, so she wears sunglasses nearly everywhere: " I collapsed onto our bed at the local four-star hotel a little after dawn, my aching eyes already squeezed shut. Shaun was a bit steadier on his feet and he stayed upright long enough to make sure the room's blackout curtains were drawn. "
The technical side of the story - - - the computer world and the electronic usage- - - in Feed is done pretty well. It's like the movie Nightcrawler meets 28 Days Later, but with a lot less zombies. We get to see the seedy underbelly of journalism- - - where bloggers are willing to do anything to get their view count high. Readers also get to witness how life is like living in a world held hostage by a virus - - -something that is very relatable today.
Georgia constantly reminds readers that she doesn't care about other people, and that Shaun is the only person she cares for- - - and, of course, the view count. She continually blames her lack of empathy on their adoptive parents, stating that they only took them in for the their own blog view counts. Oddly after such information, Shaun doesn't seem to be the immature one in the duo.
I haven't read the other three books, one which is a republishing of Feed, but from a different point-of-view. This story was disguised as a horror novel, but just ended up being a political thriller with some zombies thrown in for a much wider reading audience. The book skims over what life would be like after a devastating virus takes over, but focuses on what politics would be like. I can't recommend Feed as a horror novel; the tagline is also misleading: " 'The good news: we survived. The bad news: so did they. " Unless Grant was talking about politicians....
I didn't give the story a low rating because it wasn't exactly a horror book, but instead for these reasons: throughout the story, Grant repeats a lot of information that was explained earlier in the book (and only needed to be explained once); she also had inconsistencies throughout, sometimes even in the very next sentence. Adding things that needed to be explained which weren't, and the afterthoughts that broke up the flow of the story, I just couldn't enjoy it. But, if you like political thrillers, then you might like this one. I won't be continuing this series.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Zombeavers (2015) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Zombeavers is more an attempted at an 80's slasher film than a Zombie movie, you have your house by the lake, your horny teens and your monsters. The narrative is almost 'by the book' and once you work out what the threat is you could pretty much wright the script yourself. And it doesn't take much to work out the threat, between the title and opening credits you know what's going on before the protagonists do.
The effects are ok, the actual beavers are obviously fake animatronics but this is probably deliberate to help with the cheesy feel of the film, there is blood but not too much guts although there is a scene with a beaver ripped in half which is quite good (I'm not going to mention the scene meant to make any male's eyes water).
As with most 80's slashers there's sex, boobs and pruds. There are a few secondary characters, most of whom have no character and are really only there to flesh out the number victims and, to be honest the main characters don't really have much, well character.
Some of the water scenes seem to be going for a 'Friday the Thirteenth' feel but, where most films would have the characters messing about and joking about the monster and thus adding to their development, Zombeavers just gets down to the action and, as it's run time is is only around 1 hour 17 there is plenty of time for expansion.
If you like slashers then you may like Zombeavers, most of the elements are there but it's predictable, slightly funny and has mostly been done before, just not with Beavers.
The effects are ok, the actual beavers are obviously fake animatronics but this is probably deliberate to help with the cheesy feel of the film, there is blood but not too much guts although there is a scene with a beaver ripped in half which is quite good (I'm not going to mention the scene meant to make any male's eyes water).
As with most 80's slashers there's sex, boobs and pruds. There are a few secondary characters, most of whom have no character and are really only there to flesh out the number victims and, to be honest the main characters don't really have much, well character.
Some of the water scenes seem to be going for a 'Friday the Thirteenth' feel but, where most films would have the characters messing about and joking about the monster and thus adding to their development, Zombeavers just gets down to the action and, as it's run time is is only around 1 hour 17 there is plenty of time for expansion.
If you like slashers then you may like Zombeavers, most of the elements are there but it's predictable, slightly funny and has mostly been done before, just not with Beavers.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated X-Force, Volume 1: Angels And Demons in Books
Nov 30, 2020
When X-FORCE relaunched in 2009, I was on board for the first couple issues. Clayton Crain's sombre-hued, v art was perfectly suited to the new incarnation of the team: essentially, they were being re-crafted as a mutant Black Ops team. This was the book that got me into the character of Laura Kinney/X-23, and since that time, I have gobbled everything related to her backstory (both the well-written stuff and the not-so-well-written stuff).
Unfortunately, I was trying to read X-FORCE at a darker point (no pun intended) in my life. Long story short, I dropped the series after the third issue.
Fast forward to now.. I am at a better place mentally/emotionally (for the most part. Some days are better/worse than others). In I went, gobbling it up at a brisker pace than I could have imagined, bearing witness to a hitherto unheard of trail of carnage in an X-related book!
Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost were responsible for the creation of the character of X-23, where she first appeared in the animated series X-MEN: EVOLUTION back in the early 2000's, so I had an inkling of what to expect. However, the animated series was tame as heck compared what went down. If you have had the opportunity to see the movie LOGAN, it was that kind of intensity that was going on in these pages!
From the start, it was a team that Logan did not believe in, and he told Cyclops that in so many words (and a punch to the jaw!). However, as Cyclops told him, these are dark times, and to combat what is about to come, a "no rules" team, one that would be off-the-books is necessary! Logan does not agree with the team as whole, but he goes along with their first mission, as he feels the need to keep an eye on them, as well as watching out for Laura (Cyclops' assigning her to the team earns him the sock on the jaw!).
A lot of blood, a boatload of hurt, and a whole lot of things you mostly likely will not be able to unseen. All in the name of making it safe to be a mutant!
Kyle and Yost's characterizations are spot on, never wavering or disappointing. The characterization for Logan is particularly good, as are that of the Purifiers, the series', and mutantkind's, Big Bad. From the art to the writing, everything about this book, and clearly the series as a whole, is one hundred percent!
I won't lie, this is probably one of the darkest X-books you will ever read! The only one darker that I can think of is OLD MAN LOGAN. However, if you can handle angst-heavy, zero happy endings, then this is definitely for you! I can't recommend it enough!
Unfortunately, I was trying to read X-FORCE at a darker point (no pun intended) in my life. Long story short, I dropped the series after the third issue.
Fast forward to now.. I am at a better place mentally/emotionally (for the most part. Some days are better/worse than others). In I went, gobbling it up at a brisker pace than I could have imagined, bearing witness to a hitherto unheard of trail of carnage in an X-related book!
Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost were responsible for the creation of the character of X-23, where she first appeared in the animated series X-MEN: EVOLUTION back in the early 2000's, so I had an inkling of what to expect. However, the animated series was tame as heck compared what went down. If you have had the opportunity to see the movie LOGAN, it was that kind of intensity that was going on in these pages!
From the start, it was a team that Logan did not believe in, and he told Cyclops that in so many words (and a punch to the jaw!). However, as Cyclops told him, these are dark times, and to combat what is about to come, a "no rules" team, one that would be off-the-books is necessary! Logan does not agree with the team as whole, but he goes along with their first mission, as he feels the need to keep an eye on them, as well as watching out for Laura (Cyclops' assigning her to the team earns him the sock on the jaw!).
A lot of blood, a boatload of hurt, and a whole lot of things you mostly likely will not be able to unseen. All in the name of making it safe to be a mutant!
Kyle and Yost's characterizations are spot on, never wavering or disappointing. The characterization for Logan is particularly good, as are that of the Purifiers, the series', and mutantkind's, Big Bad. From the art to the writing, everything about this book, and clearly the series as a whole, is one hundred percent!
I won't lie, this is probably one of the darkest X-books you will ever read! The only one darker that I can think of is OLD MAN LOGAN. However, if you can handle angst-heavy, zero happy endings, then this is definitely for you! I can't recommend it enough!
MSC1: Be Confident in Who You Are
Book and Education
App
Now for iPhone and iPad! • “As you prepare for back to school, don't forget the anxiety...[this...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ok, I'll start by saying that this is one of those films that needs two viewings, not that the second viewing adds anything to it but you do get to appreciate what the film is trying to do. Let me explain.
First off Bloodshot is action/comic book movie of two half's. In the first half we half (well maybe first third) we have Ray Garrison (Vin Diesel) completing his mission, celebrating, getting captured and loosing his wife before being resurrected as Bloodshot and going out on a mission of revenge. All of this has an increasingly comic book feel to it, and so it should, the film is based on one after all. However some scenes feel too comic and the "villain", Martin Axe, feels too over the top, especially when he seems to have had a personality swap the next time we see him. There is a reason for of this reviled by the films mid way plot twist but, on the first watch through the "Psycho Killer" scene distracted me from some of the film. Then we get a plot twist that studio Trigger* would be proud of. I'm sure anyone who has read the original source material knew what was going to happen, but that has always been one of the problems, keeping the mystery for new fans but giving the comic book fans what they want.
As we get to the second half of the film it losses some of t e over the top-ness, or at least substitutes it for a different kind of over the top and does bring you back into the plot of 'Augmented man fights other augmented men' which does give us a good over the top action film.
If you do give Bloodshot a second watch then you do notice some clever little bits, like the entire plot being told to us near the beginning of the film. Although I'm still not sure why the London police car has a machine gun in the back of it.
Over all Bloodshot is a o.k. - Good action film but for no brained augmented human action films I think ' Hobbs and Shaw' did it better, Bloodshot even shares Eiza Gonzales with them.
*Responsible for the anime's Kill la Kill and Gurren Lagann both of which have mid season twists that send the series in different directions.
First off Bloodshot is action/comic book movie of two half's. In the first half we half (well maybe first third) we have Ray Garrison (Vin Diesel) completing his mission, celebrating, getting captured and loosing his wife before being resurrected as Bloodshot and going out on a mission of revenge. All of this has an increasingly comic book feel to it, and so it should, the film is based on one after all. However some scenes feel too comic and the "villain", Martin Axe, feels too over the top, especially when he seems to have had a personality swap the next time we see him. There is a reason for of this reviled by the films mid way plot twist but, on the first watch through the "Psycho Killer" scene distracted me from some of the film. Then we get a plot twist that studio Trigger* would be proud of. I'm sure anyone who has read the original source material knew what was going to happen, but that has always been one of the problems, keeping the mystery for new fans but giving the comic book fans what they want.
As we get to the second half of the film it losses some of t e over the top-ness, or at least substitutes it for a different kind of over the top and does bring you back into the plot of 'Augmented man fights other augmented men' which does give us a good over the top action film.
If you do give Bloodshot a second watch then you do notice some clever little bits, like the entire plot being told to us near the beginning of the film. Although I'm still not sure why the London police car has a machine gun in the back of it.
Over all Bloodshot is a o.k. - Good action film but for no brained augmented human action films I think ' Hobbs and Shaw' did it better, Bloodshot even shares Eiza Gonzales with them.
*Responsible for the anime's Kill la Kill and Gurren Lagann both of which have mid season twists that send the series in different directions.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Santa Jaws (2018) in Movies
Aug 7, 2020
It really shouldn't have been such a challenge for me to see this film. Nearly two years after its release I finally managed to see it... and spoiler alert for my conclusion... it was fintastic.
Cody makes a Christmas wish to be alone, little does he know that his Christmas present is going to make that wish come true in a very festive and gruesome way.
I very quickly want to get a negative out of the way first. There is very noticeable music playing throughout the film. Now, I'm one of those terrible people that doesn't notice music unless it's brilliantly placed or horrendous, and while this music isn't horrendous it does suffer from being way too familiar. You've got Christmas tunes which work fine but the film has the Home Alone theme/feel about it and I think most people can identify those songs when they pop up anywhere.
This film has a little Inception moment at the beginning and we get a representation of the comic the boys are writing. I'm honestly a little disappointed that we didn't get to see that as a whole film of its own when it brings us the amazing line "See you in jingle hell!" spoken with such heart.
Once we get down to our regular programming it's very easy to sink into the ideas at work, there's nothing over complicated and the characters are easy to place. You get the chance to make predictors/wishes early on for who you want to die, and I was not disappointed... at the same time though I was super angry about Santa Jaws' first kill, BAD SHARK!
The acting isn't bad overall, there are some bits that come across a little cheesy and forced when we keep getting Home Alone-esque pieces thrown in, but at the same time... it's a movie about a Christmas themed shark sooooooo.
I'm not entirely sure that the comic book shop was a necessary inclusion on the whole but I can't argue with the choices the owner made... kudos... I wouldn't have wanted those missed out of the final piece.
Shark movie logic abounds and characters make tremendous leaps in deductions that further the plot. My favourite being about the Christmassy nature of the shark. I don't know how the shark's powers and weaknesses came about it the storyline but, standing ovation to you, I loved it.
I ended up getting an imported shark DVD box set so I could see this, it was definitely worth the effort. (Not the stress of trying to play it, but that's another story.) I can only hope this one hits our screens on SyFy or the Horror Channel, I'm honestly surprised it hasn't already. Santa Jaws is an amusing romp in the creature feature genre, it's a great twist on the classics (shark or Christmas film, take your pick) and for the brave I'm sure you could make a drinking game out of Christmas puns and Home Alone references... though maybe not with anything too strong, you might not make it to the end.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/santa-jaws-movie-review.html
Cody makes a Christmas wish to be alone, little does he know that his Christmas present is going to make that wish come true in a very festive and gruesome way.
I very quickly want to get a negative out of the way first. There is very noticeable music playing throughout the film. Now, I'm one of those terrible people that doesn't notice music unless it's brilliantly placed or horrendous, and while this music isn't horrendous it does suffer from being way too familiar. You've got Christmas tunes which work fine but the film has the Home Alone theme/feel about it and I think most people can identify those songs when they pop up anywhere.
This film has a little Inception moment at the beginning and we get a representation of the comic the boys are writing. I'm honestly a little disappointed that we didn't get to see that as a whole film of its own when it brings us the amazing line "See you in jingle hell!" spoken with such heart.
Once we get down to our regular programming it's very easy to sink into the ideas at work, there's nothing over complicated and the characters are easy to place. You get the chance to make predictors/wishes early on for who you want to die, and I was not disappointed... at the same time though I was super angry about Santa Jaws' first kill, BAD SHARK!
The acting isn't bad overall, there are some bits that come across a little cheesy and forced when we keep getting Home Alone-esque pieces thrown in, but at the same time... it's a movie about a Christmas themed shark sooooooo.
I'm not entirely sure that the comic book shop was a necessary inclusion on the whole but I can't argue with the choices the owner made... kudos... I wouldn't have wanted those missed out of the final piece.
Shark movie logic abounds and characters make tremendous leaps in deductions that further the plot. My favourite being about the Christmassy nature of the shark. I don't know how the shark's powers and weaknesses came about it the storyline but, standing ovation to you, I loved it.
I ended up getting an imported shark DVD box set so I could see this, it was definitely worth the effort. (Not the stress of trying to play it, but that's another story.) I can only hope this one hits our screens on SyFy or the Horror Channel, I'm honestly surprised it hasn't already. Santa Jaws is an amusing romp in the creature feature genre, it's a great twist on the classics (shark or Christmas film, take your pick) and for the brave I'm sure you could make a drinking game out of Christmas puns and Home Alone references... though maybe not with anything too strong, you might not make it to the end.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/santa-jaws-movie-review.html
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Looking for Alaska in Books
Jan 25, 2018
I just finished reading Looking for Alaska, making it the fifth John Green book I've read, after Will Grayson, Will Grayson, Let It Snow, The Fault In Our Stars, and An Abundance of Katherines. I enjoyed Looking for Alaska immensely, just like I did the other three. (My favorite being Let It Snow, which he wrote with two other authors as a set of three related short stories.) I haven't made a habit out of reading young adult fiction, but for John Green I'll definitely make an exception. I should also pick up some of Maureen Johnson's books; her contribution to Let It Snow was excellent.
I have a confession to make before I go any further: I am a Nerdfighter. I was introduced to John and Hank Green about two years ago by one of my best friends, by way of Crash Course. Since then I've (almost!) caught up on their Vlogbrother videos, watched most of the Crash Course videos (sorry Hank, I'm just not into chemistry) and started watching Sci Show. John and Hank are both extremely educated, well spoken, and yet extremely entertaining and fun to watch. Watching the vlogbrothers episodes where John talks about writing the books (as he's writing them!) is what finally made me go pick up his books to read. And he's GOOD.
In Looking for Alaska, Miles Halter goes away to boarding school at Culver Creek, his father's alma mater. He's in search of his "great perhaps," his meaning for life. (The phrase comes from Francois Rabelais' last words "I go to seek a Great Perhaps." Miles doesn't want to wait until he dies to go in search of his.) Culver Creek really marks a turning point in Miles' life - from a friendless outcast in his old school to one of the closest friends of Alaska Young. Alaska is a bit of a bad girl (sneaking cigarettes and alcohol into school constantly and pulling ingenious pranks) but also an enigma. The entire school body loves her, but even to her closest friends she doesn't reveal much about herself.
The book is divided into "before" and "after" and it wasn't until within a few pages till the end of the "before" section that I realized what the event was. "After" deals with the characters of the book coming to terms with their life-altering event.
In The Fault In Our Stars, John Green dealt with the lead up to a life-altering event that the characters knew was coming - a long, drawn-out sort of grief. Looking For Alaska deals with the fallout of an event no one knew was coming, and while the emotions are just as deep, they feel sharper somehow for being so unexpected.
I definitely recommend this book, and all of John Green's books. He's a very talented writer, and isn't afraid to put "adult" themes into his "young adult" books. As if sex and alcohol and death and deep meaning-of-life questions aren't things every teenager deals with? I like that he doesn't pull his emotional punches. His books may be "young adult" but they're not fluffy or "easy to read." Easy in terms of grammar and flow perhaps, but not in content. I teared up reading parts of Looking For Alaska, and outright sobbed for a good portion of The Fault In Our Stars. (Which is now a movie!)
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com (review originally written 4 years ago.)
I have a confession to make before I go any further: I am a Nerdfighter. I was introduced to John and Hank Green about two years ago by one of my best friends, by way of Crash Course. Since then I've (almost!) caught up on their Vlogbrother videos, watched most of the Crash Course videos (sorry Hank, I'm just not into chemistry) and started watching Sci Show. John and Hank are both extremely educated, well spoken, and yet extremely entertaining and fun to watch. Watching the vlogbrothers episodes where John talks about writing the books (as he's writing them!) is what finally made me go pick up his books to read. And he's GOOD.
In Looking for Alaska, Miles Halter goes away to boarding school at Culver Creek, his father's alma mater. He's in search of his "great perhaps," his meaning for life. (The phrase comes from Francois Rabelais' last words "I go to seek a Great Perhaps." Miles doesn't want to wait until he dies to go in search of his.) Culver Creek really marks a turning point in Miles' life - from a friendless outcast in his old school to one of the closest friends of Alaska Young. Alaska is a bit of a bad girl (sneaking cigarettes and alcohol into school constantly and pulling ingenious pranks) but also an enigma. The entire school body loves her, but even to her closest friends she doesn't reveal much about herself.
The book is divided into "before" and "after" and it wasn't until within a few pages till the end of the "before" section that I realized what the event was. "After" deals with the characters of the book coming to terms with their life-altering event.
In The Fault In Our Stars, John Green dealt with the lead up to a life-altering event that the characters knew was coming - a long, drawn-out sort of grief. Looking For Alaska deals with the fallout of an event no one knew was coming, and while the emotions are just as deep, they feel sharper somehow for being so unexpected.
I definitely recommend this book, and all of John Green's books. He's a very talented writer, and isn't afraid to put "adult" themes into his "young adult" books. As if sex and alcohol and death and deep meaning-of-life questions aren't things every teenager deals with? I like that he doesn't pull his emotional punches. His books may be "young adult" but they're not fluffy or "easy to read." Easy in terms of grammar and flow perhaps, but not in content. I teared up reading parts of Looking For Alaska, and outright sobbed for a good portion of The Fault In Our Stars. (Which is now a movie!)
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com (review originally written 4 years ago.)
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Beast Within: A Tale of Beauty's Prince (Villains #2) in Books
Aug 24, 2019
Beauty and the Beast is arguably one of my favourite Disney classics. I adored Tale as Old as Time and so the Beast’s version of the villain’s tale series had some pretty big boots to fill.
The Beast Within is the second book in the villains’ series and shifts between time periods to provide the reader with an insight to the Beast’s life before and after he was cursed. This was such an interesting concept because each version of Beauty and the Beast contains the vain prince who shuns the enchantress: it’s a pretty key part of the story! However, Serena Valentino expands upon this and, although the Prince becomes no more likeable, Valentino humanises him. We learn the extent of his vanity and, to be honest, probably dislike him more than the original version!
We also receive more of an insight into the Odd Sisters within this novel. We visit their house and gain an idea of the pecking order within the foursome. Yes foursome! I have not drunk too much prosecco and can no longer count (well not yet) – the witches have a little sister.
Circe is as beautiful as her sisters are odd and also happens to be engaged to the Prince (massive coincidence I am sure) but is rejected by him when his best friend Gaston reveals that her family are pig farmers. He claims she deceived him with her beauty and is sickened by her grotesque appearance now he knows the truth.
In fact, by placing Gaston and the Prince side by side we start to think that maybe Belle made the wrong choice by dismissing the shallow hunter so quickly!
Needless to say, Circe is crushed: she accuses him of behaving like a beast, being tainted by vanity and not capable of true love. The spurned witch curses the Prince, warning him that he will slowly transform into the horrifying creature that he is within.
The fact that the reader witnesses the full transformation of Prince into Beast is really interesting and Circe’s words have a profound effect on the Prince, his grasp on his sanity and his future relationships. He veers wildly between dismissing Circe as crazy whilst simultaneously finding a bride in order to break the spell.
Naturally, the Prince is not alone in this story: Mrs Potts, Cogsworth and Lumiere unwittingly become swept up in Circe’s curse. In fact, the odd sisters taunt the Beast, implying that he is only concerned about his servants because of what they may do to him if the curse is not lifted.
Valentino does choose to express that Mrs Potts, in particular, had great affection for the Prince and Gaston as children but this isn’t really played on at all. The reader does gain the sense that the Prince is cared for by his staff but there are no real relationships developed here. Even when Lumiere realises that the Prince views the objects of the curse differently from everyone else; there lacks the compassion and assistance of their animated counterparts.
Another relationship that lacked conviction was that between the Beast and Belle. This is one of the most iconic love stories in the Disney portfolio but I’m afraid I just wasn’t feeling it. I understand that Valentino needs to focus on Tulip: she is an important character who shows the Prince’s desperation, his unwillingness to change and his escalating beastly behaviour (she also links into the next book in the series). However, the focus on Tulip seems to sacrifice any detail when it comes to Belle. Yes, we learn that she attended the original ball and that she will do anything to save her father but that’s pretty much it. The blossoming romance that ensues is witnessed third hand via the odd sisters’ mirror and it begs the question: is this the tale of Beauty’s Prince or is the tale of Circe and her sisters?
Despite Circe being the youngest, it is often implied that she is more powerful than her older sisters and, although she does seem more sane, it cannot be said that Circe is a pushover: upon learning of her sisters’ involvement in the Beast’s fate, Circe punishes them; removes the curse and creates the spinning prince complete with fireworks that we remember from the original movie. This transition from bitter, heartbroken witch to sympathetic and forgiving is unforeseen and abrupt. To be honest it felt like it was a convenient way of shoe-horning the movie ending into the book.
Overall, I loved the potential of The Beast Within. I really enjoyed learning more about the Prince’s character and seeing a side of him that the reader cannot merely brush off as young or vain: he was a truly horrible person. I also loved the little nods to the fairy-tale world, such as Gaston suggesting a ball because it all worked out for the Prince’s friend “after the business with the slipper”.
Valentino also provides hints to future novels and so the references to Ursula were very intriguing as I prepare to read ‘Poor Unfortunate Soul’ next. There is the occasional reference to the old Queen, as well as the continuation of the theme of mirrors and love as a weakness: the odd sisters really do dominate the tales.
In a way I almost feel that the book has a little too much going on: we have the beast’s battle against the curse; the odd sister’s magic; Circe and Ursula’s little tangent and the original storyline. In my opinion, all of these factors make the ending of the book very rushed. For example, the Beast juxtaposes from being unable to fall in love with someone like Belle to presenting her with an entire library just to see her smile in a matter of sentences!
It is a shame because, after the ending of ‘Fairest of All’ I was expecting so much more. I did still like the book but I didn’t love it- I felt like the book could have expanded more on the more unique/dark aspects of the story, such as the creepy statues and the Beast’s alternative view of the curse.
Ah well, you can’t love them all! Onwards and upwards to Poor Unfortunate Soul!
The Beast Within is the second book in the villains’ series and shifts between time periods to provide the reader with an insight to the Beast’s life before and after he was cursed. This was such an interesting concept because each version of Beauty and the Beast contains the vain prince who shuns the enchantress: it’s a pretty key part of the story! However, Serena Valentino expands upon this and, although the Prince becomes no more likeable, Valentino humanises him. We learn the extent of his vanity and, to be honest, probably dislike him more than the original version!
We also receive more of an insight into the Odd Sisters within this novel. We visit their house and gain an idea of the pecking order within the foursome. Yes foursome! I have not drunk too much prosecco and can no longer count (well not yet) – the witches have a little sister.
Circe is as beautiful as her sisters are odd and also happens to be engaged to the Prince (massive coincidence I am sure) but is rejected by him when his best friend Gaston reveals that her family are pig farmers. He claims she deceived him with her beauty and is sickened by her grotesque appearance now he knows the truth.
In fact, by placing Gaston and the Prince side by side we start to think that maybe Belle made the wrong choice by dismissing the shallow hunter so quickly!
Needless to say, Circe is crushed: she accuses him of behaving like a beast, being tainted by vanity and not capable of true love. The spurned witch curses the Prince, warning him that he will slowly transform into the horrifying creature that he is within.
The fact that the reader witnesses the full transformation of Prince into Beast is really interesting and Circe’s words have a profound effect on the Prince, his grasp on his sanity and his future relationships. He veers wildly between dismissing Circe as crazy whilst simultaneously finding a bride in order to break the spell.
Naturally, the Prince is not alone in this story: Mrs Potts, Cogsworth and Lumiere unwittingly become swept up in Circe’s curse. In fact, the odd sisters taunt the Beast, implying that he is only concerned about his servants because of what they may do to him if the curse is not lifted.
Valentino does choose to express that Mrs Potts, in particular, had great affection for the Prince and Gaston as children but this isn’t really played on at all. The reader does gain the sense that the Prince is cared for by his staff but there are no real relationships developed here. Even when Lumiere realises that the Prince views the objects of the curse differently from everyone else; there lacks the compassion and assistance of their animated counterparts.
Another relationship that lacked conviction was that between the Beast and Belle. This is one of the most iconic love stories in the Disney portfolio but I’m afraid I just wasn’t feeling it. I understand that Valentino needs to focus on Tulip: she is an important character who shows the Prince’s desperation, his unwillingness to change and his escalating beastly behaviour (she also links into the next book in the series). However, the focus on Tulip seems to sacrifice any detail when it comes to Belle. Yes, we learn that she attended the original ball and that she will do anything to save her father but that’s pretty much it. The blossoming romance that ensues is witnessed third hand via the odd sisters’ mirror and it begs the question: is this the tale of Beauty’s Prince or is the tale of Circe and her sisters?
Despite Circe being the youngest, it is often implied that she is more powerful than her older sisters and, although she does seem more sane, it cannot be said that Circe is a pushover: upon learning of her sisters’ involvement in the Beast’s fate, Circe punishes them; removes the curse and creates the spinning prince complete with fireworks that we remember from the original movie. This transition from bitter, heartbroken witch to sympathetic and forgiving is unforeseen and abrupt. To be honest it felt like it was a convenient way of shoe-horning the movie ending into the book.
Overall, I loved the potential of The Beast Within. I really enjoyed learning more about the Prince’s character and seeing a side of him that the reader cannot merely brush off as young or vain: he was a truly horrible person. I also loved the little nods to the fairy-tale world, such as Gaston suggesting a ball because it all worked out for the Prince’s friend “after the business with the slipper”.
Valentino also provides hints to future novels and so the references to Ursula were very intriguing as I prepare to read ‘Poor Unfortunate Soul’ next. There is the occasional reference to the old Queen, as well as the continuation of the theme of mirrors and love as a weakness: the odd sisters really do dominate the tales.
In a way I almost feel that the book has a little too much going on: we have the beast’s battle against the curse; the odd sister’s magic; Circe and Ursula’s little tangent and the original storyline. In my opinion, all of these factors make the ending of the book very rushed. For example, the Beast juxtaposes from being unable to fall in love with someone like Belle to presenting her with an entire library just to see her smile in a matter of sentences!
It is a shame because, after the ending of ‘Fairest of All’ I was expecting so much more. I did still like the book but I didn’t love it- I felt like the book could have expanded more on the more unique/dark aspects of the story, such as the creepy statues and the Beast’s alternative view of the curse.
Ah well, you can’t love them all! Onwards and upwards to Poor Unfortunate Soul!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Gone Girl (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Let me start by saying that the novel Gone Girl is a fantastic piece of literature. Author Gillian Flynn writes a wickedly deceptive story through the use of characterization and voice that is not only a rousing read, but also a gripping one that allows the reader to understand just exactly who the players are in this thrilling story.
With this in mind, I was concerned that there was no way this film could capture the dark side of the characters and the story being told. I am glad to say that I was wrong. While the typical statement of “the book is better” does apply here, director David Fincher crafts a film that audiences will be able to understand and fill in the blanks of the devious motivations of the characters based on what is seen on screen. This is a refreshing theater experience as I feel that most novel adaptations often lead to lazy filmmaking that assumes the audience is familiar with the source material. Perhaps Fincher is helped by the fact that Gillian Flynn herself wrote the screen adaptation of her novel, keeping the most important elements in play.
Ben Affleck plays Nick Dunne, an introspective “nice” guy who finds himself the primary suspect in the missing persons/murder investigation of his wife Amy, played by Rosamund Pike. The two shine in their performances. They each took their characters from the pages of the book, breathed life into them and embodied Nick and Amy on screen. Combine them with a strong supporting cast of Carrie Coon, Kim Dickens, Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry, who gave performances that were neither lost nor forgettable. This is important as each are needed to provide contrast to the main characters and propel the story forward.
Though this film is not perfect, if there is any one gripe I have about this movie, it’s that a simple line of missed dialogue may cause the theater patron to miss something important to the story, such as the significance of the woodshed. However this is a small gripe as I feel that the pacing of the film and the constant advancement of the story will keep most patrons’ attention and keep them interested in the destiny of the characters.
If you are a reader, I would recommend reading the book first to get into the minds of the characters and truly feel the thrill of this story. However, if you haven’t the time or just don’t like to read, you won’t be disappointed with this strong film adaptation.
With this in mind, I was concerned that there was no way this film could capture the dark side of the characters and the story being told. I am glad to say that I was wrong. While the typical statement of “the book is better” does apply here, director David Fincher crafts a film that audiences will be able to understand and fill in the blanks of the devious motivations of the characters based on what is seen on screen. This is a refreshing theater experience as I feel that most novel adaptations often lead to lazy filmmaking that assumes the audience is familiar with the source material. Perhaps Fincher is helped by the fact that Gillian Flynn herself wrote the screen adaptation of her novel, keeping the most important elements in play.
Ben Affleck plays Nick Dunne, an introspective “nice” guy who finds himself the primary suspect in the missing persons/murder investigation of his wife Amy, played by Rosamund Pike. The two shine in their performances. They each took their characters from the pages of the book, breathed life into them and embodied Nick and Amy on screen. Combine them with a strong supporting cast of Carrie Coon, Kim Dickens, Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry, who gave performances that were neither lost nor forgettable. This is important as each are needed to provide contrast to the main characters and propel the story forward.
Though this film is not perfect, if there is any one gripe I have about this movie, it’s that a simple line of missed dialogue may cause the theater patron to miss something important to the story, such as the significance of the woodshed. However this is a small gripe as I feel that the pacing of the film and the constant advancement of the story will keep most patrons’ attention and keep them interested in the destiny of the characters.
If you are a reader, I would recommend reading the book first to get into the minds of the characters and truly feel the thrill of this story. However, if you haven’t the time or just don’t like to read, you won’t be disappointed with this strong film adaptation.