Search
Search results
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Awakened (Vampire Awakenings #1) in Books
Sep 13, 2018
www.diaryofdifference.com
Awakened is the first book from the Vampire Awakening Series and it is written by USA Today bestselling author Brenda K. Davies. This is a book where a guy meets a girl. Girl has a secret and tells it on their first date. Boy is a vampire, but we are 80% in the book until it’s mentioned (even though title clearly states it, and you keep expecting it to happen). When secret is told - boy gives girl a choice to escape. Girls chooses to stay, and boy becomes possessive because he wants her too much. Then he does something to her, kind of against her will. And then they live happily ever after.
If I was a few years younger, I would have loved this book, probably because I wouldn’t have noticed all the glitches in it. But right here, right now - I didn’t enjoy it as much I wanted too.
Strong, sexual language and sex scenes can be found throughout the book. This was a book from my sister Tea’s Wishlist Challenge - and I was embarrassed to tell her I am reading this book - because I knew what kind of scenes she has read…
Apart from that - the characters were unrealistic. And unlikable. I liked their friends and their enemies more than I liked the main characters.
Sera - a girl that doesn’t talk to men, and has her own opinion on things, suddenly meets this guy, and he becomes possessive of her, and her character development stops right here. She keeps nodding at him, and obeys his every command. Not much of a heroine, is she?
Liam - a guy that is actually a vampire, but doesn’t tell Sera until things get really serious. He lies to her, is possessive, wants to kill everyone that touches her, and loves her and wants her so much that he has to turn her into a vampire, otherwise he’ll kill her. Really?
Now, if we take the fact that this is a vampire book - firstly, we don’t get to read about vampires until the book is almost finished. And when we do, it is unfinished, and barely even described. I don’t know anything about the way they become vampires, how they survive in the world, how they feed, how they die, but apparently, they can have children, so I guess the author covered everything. Oh, and, also - vampires can walk into the sun, but the more they kill, the more the sun hurts them. So believable - and FAIR.
The only thing that I liked was the ending - the point about how children are possible seemed to have worked out well. Not believable, but it was nice to see that as a theory. And it was also a great layout for the next story to come - which I will be reading, just to see if this writing will improve.
What is your favorite vampire book?
Awakened is the first book from the Vampire Awakening Series and it is written by USA Today bestselling author Brenda K. Davies. This is a book where a guy meets a girl. Girl has a secret and tells it on their first date. Boy is a vampire, but we are 80% in the book until it’s mentioned (even though title clearly states it, and you keep expecting it to happen). When secret is told - boy gives girl a choice to escape. Girls chooses to stay, and boy becomes possessive because he wants her too much. Then he does something to her, kind of against her will. And then they live happily ever after.
If I was a few years younger, I would have loved this book, probably because I wouldn’t have noticed all the glitches in it. But right here, right now - I didn’t enjoy it as much I wanted too.
Strong, sexual language and sex scenes can be found throughout the book. This was a book from my sister Tea’s Wishlist Challenge - and I was embarrassed to tell her I am reading this book - because I knew what kind of scenes she has read…
Apart from that - the characters were unrealistic. And unlikable. I liked their friends and their enemies more than I liked the main characters.
Sera - a girl that doesn’t talk to men, and has her own opinion on things, suddenly meets this guy, and he becomes possessive of her, and her character development stops right here. She keeps nodding at him, and obeys his every command. Not much of a heroine, is she?
Liam - a guy that is actually a vampire, but doesn’t tell Sera until things get really serious. He lies to her, is possessive, wants to kill everyone that touches her, and loves her and wants her so much that he has to turn her into a vampire, otherwise he’ll kill her. Really?
Now, if we take the fact that this is a vampire book - firstly, we don’t get to read about vampires until the book is almost finished. And when we do, it is unfinished, and barely even described. I don’t know anything about the way they become vampires, how they survive in the world, how they feed, how they die, but apparently, they can have children, so I guess the author covered everything. Oh, and, also - vampires can walk into the sun, but the more they kill, the more the sun hurts them. So believable - and FAIR.
The only thing that I liked was the ending - the point about how children are possible seemed to have worked out well. Not believable, but it was nice to see that as a theory. And it was also a great layout for the next story to come - which I will be reading, just to see if this writing will improve.
What is your favorite vampire book?
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Sausage Party (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Utterly Ridiculous
Just when Sharknado: the 4th Awakens made you think film-making couldn’t get any more ridiculous, a movie like Sausage Party comes along to remind you that Hollywood can always go that one step further to mind-boggling peculiarity.
Of course, that’s not always a bad thing, there have been countless weird and wacky films over the years that have gone on to become cult classics – look at Kick-Ass or even Pulp Fiction for examples of that. But for every Pulp Fiction there’s a Sharknado. So is Sausage Party good weird or as stale as a month-old bagel?
From the mind of Seth Rogen, Sausage Party is a strictly adults only animation that combines hugely offensive language and racial stereotypes with surprisingly meaningful religious undertones. And do you know what? It’s a breath of fresh air.
Life is good for all the food items that occupy the shelves at the local supermarket. Frank (Seth Rogen) the sausage, Brenda (Kristen Wiig) the hot dog bun, Teresa Taco and Sammy Bagel Jr. (Edward Norton) can’t wait to go home with a happy customer. Soon, their world comes crashing down as poor Frank learns the horrifying truth that he will eventually become a meal. After warning his pals about their similar fate, the panicked perishables devise a plan to escape from their human enemies.
Directors Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan take Rogen’s intriguing premise and inject a warmly familiar animation style, distancing itself just enough to make any comparisons simply inconceivable. Sausage Party is like nothing you will have ever seen.
The voice-acting is great too. Rogen plays his usual film staple – in sausage form – with the spicy Salma Hayek outdoing everyone else as a lustful taco. Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Michael Cera and Jonah Hill also lend their familiar voices to a hot-dog bun, a bottle of spirit and two other frankfurters respectively.
Elsewhere, the comedy, for the most part, hits the spot. As dreadful as it sounds, the racial stereotyping works incredibly well in food form. British tea, Mexican taco shells and German sauerkraut will have you rolling about the aisles with their outrageous vulgarity, but everyone needs to release their inner teenager once in a while.
Unfortunately, the films standout sequence has already been shown in the trailer – a side-splitting food-eye view of a normal kitchen, before every edible item is butchered; that poor Irish potato didn’t stand a chance. This is a real shame as the rest of the film doesn’t quite match up to the standard of that scene.
Nevertheless, there’ll be chuckles throughout as numerous celebrities are parodied in food form. One in particular, immortalised in chewing gum, is incredibly well thought out.
And that’s where Sausage Party succeeds the most. Underneath the polished animation and crude humour, this film is actually kind of clever. It tackles religion, war, race, sexuality and food waste very well indeed and that’s something the genre doesn’t ask for. It’s just unfortunate that it’s not quite as funny as the trailer would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/03/utterly-ridiculous-sausage-party-review/
Of course, that’s not always a bad thing, there have been countless weird and wacky films over the years that have gone on to become cult classics – look at Kick-Ass or even Pulp Fiction for examples of that. But for every Pulp Fiction there’s a Sharknado. So is Sausage Party good weird or as stale as a month-old bagel?
From the mind of Seth Rogen, Sausage Party is a strictly adults only animation that combines hugely offensive language and racial stereotypes with surprisingly meaningful religious undertones. And do you know what? It’s a breath of fresh air.
Life is good for all the food items that occupy the shelves at the local supermarket. Frank (Seth Rogen) the sausage, Brenda (Kristen Wiig) the hot dog bun, Teresa Taco and Sammy Bagel Jr. (Edward Norton) can’t wait to go home with a happy customer. Soon, their world comes crashing down as poor Frank learns the horrifying truth that he will eventually become a meal. After warning his pals about their similar fate, the panicked perishables devise a plan to escape from their human enemies.
Directors Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan take Rogen’s intriguing premise and inject a warmly familiar animation style, distancing itself just enough to make any comparisons simply inconceivable. Sausage Party is like nothing you will have ever seen.
The voice-acting is great too. Rogen plays his usual film staple – in sausage form – with the spicy Salma Hayek outdoing everyone else as a lustful taco. Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Michael Cera and Jonah Hill also lend their familiar voices to a hot-dog bun, a bottle of spirit and two other frankfurters respectively.
Elsewhere, the comedy, for the most part, hits the spot. As dreadful as it sounds, the racial stereotyping works incredibly well in food form. British tea, Mexican taco shells and German sauerkraut will have you rolling about the aisles with their outrageous vulgarity, but everyone needs to release their inner teenager once in a while.
Unfortunately, the films standout sequence has already been shown in the trailer – a side-splitting food-eye view of a normal kitchen, before every edible item is butchered; that poor Irish potato didn’t stand a chance. This is a real shame as the rest of the film doesn’t quite match up to the standard of that scene.
Nevertheless, there’ll be chuckles throughout as numerous celebrities are parodied in food form. One in particular, immortalised in chewing gum, is incredibly well thought out.
And that’s where Sausage Party succeeds the most. Underneath the polished animation and crude humour, this film is actually kind of clever. It tackles religion, war, race, sexuality and food waste very well indeed and that’s something the genre doesn’t ask for. It’s just unfortunate that it’s not quite as funny as the trailer would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/03/utterly-ridiculous-sausage-party-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Scary Movie 4 (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Anna Faris returns as Cindy Campbell in the fourth installment of the popular “Scary Movie” franchise and your favorite horror films will never be the same.
Continuing the tradition of lampooning the horror genre that was established in the three previous segments, Scary Movie 4 takes aim at SAW, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village while countless other pop culture shows and events are lambasted.
The film is pretty much a collection of scenes that are designed to mimic other films for comedic results so as such, only a very minimal plot is in place. In this case, the story follows War of the Worlds where a down and out father named Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko), must stay one step ahead of an alien invasion and protect his two estranged children from the devastation unleashed by the invaders.
Without the concerns of a plot to follow, the movie jumps from one locale to another in order to parody the various genre films. One segment has Cindy escaping the aliens by leaving her “Grudge” inspired house to reunite with her friend Brenda (Regina Hall), only to be thrust into an extended parody of The Village while Tom and company continue their parody of War of the Worlds”. While this may seem hectic to some, the film pulls it off very well as there are other subplots to follow such as Leslie Nielsen’s hilarious take as the President who is more concerned over the outcome of a children’s book then the fact that aliens are destroying the country.
Once again directed by David Zucker who took over the franchise after Scary Movie 2, the film uses the same style that made Zucker’s Airplane and Naked Gun series such box office favorites. Jokes ranging from the crude to the absurd fly at record pace inundating the audience with a torrent of jokes. As before, some jokes are truly inspired such as the Shaq and Dr. Phil parody of SAW and others take the crude road such as a sponge bath from hell and a Viagra overdose. While there is nothing that is truly fresh or original to the film, some of the jokes work very well, and make up for the jokes that bomb.
This is not the type of film where there is anything you can say about acting, plot, character development, and chemistry as those aspects are all non-existent as the focus is on parody. In that regard Scary Movie 4 works as despite the fact that much of the film is silly and dumb, it is by and large funny. If you do not mind wading through the jokes that fail to get to the ones that work, you will be rewarded as there are some very good bits in the film.
If you are a fan of the series then you know what you are in for and are likely to get some laughs, but if you are new to the franchise, then you might want to wait for the DVD release.
Continuing the tradition of lampooning the horror genre that was established in the three previous segments, Scary Movie 4 takes aim at SAW, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village while countless other pop culture shows and events are lambasted.
The film is pretty much a collection of scenes that are designed to mimic other films for comedic results so as such, only a very minimal plot is in place. In this case, the story follows War of the Worlds where a down and out father named Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko), must stay one step ahead of an alien invasion and protect his two estranged children from the devastation unleashed by the invaders.
Without the concerns of a plot to follow, the movie jumps from one locale to another in order to parody the various genre films. One segment has Cindy escaping the aliens by leaving her “Grudge” inspired house to reunite with her friend Brenda (Regina Hall), only to be thrust into an extended parody of The Village while Tom and company continue their parody of War of the Worlds”. While this may seem hectic to some, the film pulls it off very well as there are other subplots to follow such as Leslie Nielsen’s hilarious take as the President who is more concerned over the outcome of a children’s book then the fact that aliens are destroying the country.
Once again directed by David Zucker who took over the franchise after Scary Movie 2, the film uses the same style that made Zucker’s Airplane and Naked Gun series such box office favorites. Jokes ranging from the crude to the absurd fly at record pace inundating the audience with a torrent of jokes. As before, some jokes are truly inspired such as the Shaq and Dr. Phil parody of SAW and others take the crude road such as a sponge bath from hell and a Viagra overdose. While there is nothing that is truly fresh or original to the film, some of the jokes work very well, and make up for the jokes that bomb.
This is not the type of film where there is anything you can say about acting, plot, character development, and chemistry as those aspects are all non-existent as the focus is on parody. In that regard Scary Movie 4 works as despite the fact that much of the film is silly and dumb, it is by and large funny. If you do not mind wading through the jokes that fail to get to the ones that work, you will be rewarded as there are some very good bits in the film.
If you are a fan of the series then you know what you are in for and are likely to get some laughs, but if you are new to the franchise, then you might want to wait for the DVD release.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Knowing my love of reading, a friend of mine suggested I read The Maze Runner by James Dashner a few years ago. I had just finished reading Hunger Games so, honestly, I was burned out on post-apocalyptic survival stories so I set it aside. However, being familiar with the title, my interest was piqued when the movie was announced and I found myself drawn into the story more than I expected when I screened The Maze Runner movie in 2014. It didn’t have the desperate drama of The Hunger Games, but the mystery of the maze was intriguing enough.
If you haven’t seen the first movie in this series, you’ll want to watch that first as Scorch Trials picks up pretty much where the last movie ended. There are no recaps or flashbacks which fans may appreciate as the full 2 hours and 12 minute running time is dedicated to advancing the story, but it’s definitely not a movie that stands well on its own.
Having escaped from the Glade, Thomas and his somber band of Gladers are transported to a fortified military installation where for a brief moment they believe they’re safe from Ava Paige and WCKD, the mysterious organization that placed them in the Glade for reasons still unknown.
Suspicious and untrusting (by nature, or conditioning?), Thomas, played with grim determination by Dylan O’Brien, uncovers the outpost’s connection to WCKD and the gang is on the run again but this time, instead of a maze, they find themselves in a desolate landscape known as the Scorch.
If the first movie was “The Great Escape”, this movie is “The Amazing Race”. Hoping to find “The Right Hand”, a vigilante group of resistance fighters that have allegedly rescued other Gladers, Thomas and gang set out across a barren wasteland. The movie follows their desperate flight to avoid both WCKD operatives and “cranks”, zombies who were victims of a virus that has wiped out most of humanity.
I watched most of The Scorch Trials, much like I watch The Walking Dead, with my eyes clenched shut but still listening earnestly, but I’m a bit of a wimp that way. There’s definitely more action in this installment and those who enjoyed the first movie, will appreciate this one more even though the last 20 minutes or so of the movie was set up for the third Maze Runner: The Death Cure due in 2017.
The core band of Gladers, played by O’Brien, Kaya Scodelario (Teresa), Thomas Brodie-Sangster (Newt), Ki Hong Lee (Minho), Dexter Darden (Frypan) and Alexander Flores (Winston) are easy to root for, while Game of Thrones’ Aiden Gillen (Janson) and Patricia Clarkson, who reprises her role as Ava Paige, are very easy to dislike. The Scorch Trials introduces new characters, like Aris another maze escapee played by Jacob Lofland, and Brenda and Jorge, survivors turned mercenaries played by Rosa Salazar and Giancarlo Esposito who add a new dimension to the story. Will they help lead the Gladers to The Right Hand or turn them over to WCKD for the right price?
In addition to nearly maiming my husband by squeezing his hand too tight, I also left the movie a little winded from holding my breath in suspense, and watching these kids do a hell of a lot of running. A worthy sequel, The Scorch Trials definitely leaves you ready for the story to continue.
If you haven’t seen the first movie in this series, you’ll want to watch that first as Scorch Trials picks up pretty much where the last movie ended. There are no recaps or flashbacks which fans may appreciate as the full 2 hours and 12 minute running time is dedicated to advancing the story, but it’s definitely not a movie that stands well on its own.
Having escaped from the Glade, Thomas and his somber band of Gladers are transported to a fortified military installation where for a brief moment they believe they’re safe from Ava Paige and WCKD, the mysterious organization that placed them in the Glade for reasons still unknown.
Suspicious and untrusting (by nature, or conditioning?), Thomas, played with grim determination by Dylan O’Brien, uncovers the outpost’s connection to WCKD and the gang is on the run again but this time, instead of a maze, they find themselves in a desolate landscape known as the Scorch.
If the first movie was “The Great Escape”, this movie is “The Amazing Race”. Hoping to find “The Right Hand”, a vigilante group of resistance fighters that have allegedly rescued other Gladers, Thomas and gang set out across a barren wasteland. The movie follows their desperate flight to avoid both WCKD operatives and “cranks”, zombies who were victims of a virus that has wiped out most of humanity.
I watched most of The Scorch Trials, much like I watch The Walking Dead, with my eyes clenched shut but still listening earnestly, but I’m a bit of a wimp that way. There’s definitely more action in this installment and those who enjoyed the first movie, will appreciate this one more even though the last 20 minutes or so of the movie was set up for the third Maze Runner: The Death Cure due in 2017.
The core band of Gladers, played by O’Brien, Kaya Scodelario (Teresa), Thomas Brodie-Sangster (Newt), Ki Hong Lee (Minho), Dexter Darden (Frypan) and Alexander Flores (Winston) are easy to root for, while Game of Thrones’ Aiden Gillen (Janson) and Patricia Clarkson, who reprises her role as Ava Paige, are very easy to dislike. The Scorch Trials introduces new characters, like Aris another maze escapee played by Jacob Lofland, and Brenda and Jorge, survivors turned mercenaries played by Rosa Salazar and Giancarlo Esposito who add a new dimension to the story. Will they help lead the Gladers to The Right Hand or turn them over to WCKD for the right price?
In addition to nearly maiming my husband by squeezing his hand too tight, I also left the movie a little winded from holding my breath in suspense, and watching these kids do a hell of a lot of running. A worthy sequel, The Scorch Trials definitely leaves you ready for the story to continue.
AmyBee (4 KP) rated Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices in Books
Sep 6, 2018
This is a well entertaining book, packed full of some of the most bonkers things that people apparently do to one another in the bedroom. And the garden, and at work etc etc.
Prior to being given this book (unironically, by the most sexually adventurous man I've ever had the pleasure of...ahem.. moving swiftly on.), anyway, before he gave it to me (fnar!!) I always thought that I was pretty clued-up and knowledgeable when it came to matters of the naughty bits, but committing ruderies isn't *just* all about getting your kit off and bumping uglies...oh no... there are acts described between these sheets (of the book!!) that will make your eyes pop out.
Other body parts may also begin to protrude, if your personal kink features here (and if it doesn't, then you must be into some UBER freaky deaky shizz! .. and I'd like to meet you! *winkyface*)
.
I was a tad shocked to find that I hadn't heard of one or two of the "entries" (fnar) which is something that I didn't think at all likely before I opened it up (fnarrr). I'm not claiming to be the goddess of sex by any means but I was thrown right off guard by concepts such as "Taphephilia" which refers to "those who are aroused by being buried alive" ...
erm, say what now??
Do these people actually exist because quite frankly, that sounds made up.
Who am I kidding, we all know full well that there are some strange, strange people out there and if you think about it, you can't deny the fact that there truly isn't one single thing in existence that *doesn't* sexually arouse somebody, somewhere.
As the saying goes "there's no accounting for taste" and that has never been truer, as you will learn by page 4 at the latest.
On the flip side of all the strange and sexy fun and games (and criminal offences), there are some totally mundane entries. Along with describing all the more familiar concepts such as "bisexualism" and sex organs and all our favourite hanky-panky positions, there is also a (somewhat outdated) list of contraceptive methods. Given that the book was first published in 1992 however, I think the archaic qualities of the publication can be forgiven.
The "150+ Original Illustrations" are referenced several times at the beginning, as well as in the sub-title, but honestly, don't get too excited about this.
A porno mag in disguise it definitely isn't.
If you don't go in expecting visual titillation then you shouldn't be *too* disappointed when your expectations are not only met, but exceeded. the sketches ('cos that's all they really are), are crude (but not at all in the fun sense of the word), bland and banal in the extreme. Calling them "original" was a nice bit of editorial sneakiness, that's for sure.
I see what you did there Brenda Love (if she's not a 70's porn star, then that name is TOTALLY wasted on her, amirite?
There are some bad drawings of penises, vaginas in various states of open-ness but there's an equal amount of "Bush" in all examples. This is an outstanding example of the book's old age as we all know, pubic hair was rendered extinct circa 2001AD, so a picture of it in 2018 outside of a museum is likely to cause widespread confusion.
Overall, this is a hugely entertaining and informative book for anyone interested in anything at all to do with sex, which realistically, is the majority of us to some extent (everyone else is probably lying through their teeth).
Also a good reference book for budding sexologists (such as me), wannabe sex therapists (although a degree is probably also required for this profession), or anyone working in any part of the sex industry. (experience equals qualifications).
Prior to being given this book (unironically, by the most sexually adventurous man I've ever had the pleasure of...ahem.. moving swiftly on.), anyway, before he gave it to me (fnar!!) I always thought that I was pretty clued-up and knowledgeable when it came to matters of the naughty bits, but committing ruderies isn't *just* all about getting your kit off and bumping uglies...oh no... there are acts described between these sheets (of the book!!) that will make your eyes pop out.
Other body parts may also begin to protrude, if your personal kink features here (and if it doesn't, then you must be into some UBER freaky deaky shizz! .. and I'd like to meet you! *winkyface*)
.
I was a tad shocked to find that I hadn't heard of one or two of the "entries" (fnar) which is something that I didn't think at all likely before I opened it up (fnarrr). I'm not claiming to be the goddess of sex by any means but I was thrown right off guard by concepts such as "Taphephilia" which refers to "those who are aroused by being buried alive" ...
erm, say what now??
Do these people actually exist because quite frankly, that sounds made up.
Who am I kidding, we all know full well that there are some strange, strange people out there and if you think about it, you can't deny the fact that there truly isn't one single thing in existence that *doesn't* sexually arouse somebody, somewhere.
As the saying goes "there's no accounting for taste" and that has never been truer, as you will learn by page 4 at the latest.
On the flip side of all the strange and sexy fun and games (and criminal offences), there are some totally mundane entries. Along with describing all the more familiar concepts such as "bisexualism" and sex organs and all our favourite hanky-panky positions, there is also a (somewhat outdated) list of contraceptive methods. Given that the book was first published in 1992 however, I think the archaic qualities of the publication can be forgiven.
The "150+ Original Illustrations" are referenced several times at the beginning, as well as in the sub-title, but honestly, don't get too excited about this.
A porno mag in disguise it definitely isn't.
If you don't go in expecting visual titillation then you shouldn't be *too* disappointed when your expectations are not only met, but exceeded. the sketches ('cos that's all they really are), are crude (but not at all in the fun sense of the word), bland and banal in the extreme. Calling them "original" was a nice bit of editorial sneakiness, that's for sure.
I see what you did there Brenda Love (if she's not a 70's porn star, then that name is TOTALLY wasted on her, amirite?
There are some bad drawings of penises, vaginas in various states of open-ness but there's an equal amount of "Bush" in all examples. This is an outstanding example of the book's old age as we all know, pubic hair was rendered extinct circa 2001AD, so a picture of it in 2018 outside of a museum is likely to cause widespread confusion.
Overall, this is a hugely entertaining and informative book for anyone interested in anything at all to do with sex, which realistically, is the majority of us to some extent (everyone else is probably lying through their teeth).
Also a good reference book for budding sexologists (such as me), wannabe sex therapists (although a degree is probably also required for this profession), or anyone working in any part of the sex industry. (experience equals qualifications).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Leah (: (569 KP) Sep 13, 2018
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) Sep 13, 2018