Search
Search results
Kim Pook (101 KP) rated Case 39 (2010) in Movies
Dec 13, 2020
Emily - a social worker - is assigned to a young girl called lily due to suspected neglect. She goes to the family's House who appear to be very strange, the girl doesn't speak and the father refuses to speak directly to Emily and instead glares at her which she finds very unsettling. She reports this back to her boss who just brushes it off.
The next day Emily is able to speak to lily alone, who tells her that she overheard her parents talking about sending her to hell. Emily makes it her mission to try and save lily from her parents, and gives her her phone number telling her to call if ever she gets scared. Sure enough Lily calls her that evening asking for help before passing out. Emily racess to her house only to find lily's parents doing the most unspeakable thing to her (I won't say what it was but it definitely shocked me to the core). Thankfully lily's parents are arrested and lily is put into Foster care, eventually Emily decides to take lily into her own care until they can find her a permanent Foster family.
Things seem to be going well, until a 10 year old boy kills his parents after receiving a mysterious phone call from Emily's House with a man's voice.......... It isn't long before we discover that something is off with lily and it isn't good. This child is in fact pure evil!
Before this movie I wasn't sure if I could imagine Renee zellwegger in a more serious role than Bridget Jones but I was wrong, she played this role brilliantly and the role of lily was spot on as well, that girl was proper creepy. For a 2009 movie, some scenes did look rather dated. For example the scene at the beach didn't look very believable. The movie was entertaining enough to keep me interested though, right to the end.
The next day Emily is able to speak to lily alone, who tells her that she overheard her parents talking about sending her to hell. Emily makes it her mission to try and save lily from her parents, and gives her her phone number telling her to call if ever she gets scared. Sure enough Lily calls her that evening asking for help before passing out. Emily racess to her house only to find lily's parents doing the most unspeakable thing to her (I won't say what it was but it definitely shocked me to the core). Thankfully lily's parents are arrested and lily is put into Foster care, eventually Emily decides to take lily into her own care until they can find her a permanent Foster family.
Things seem to be going well, until a 10 year old boy kills his parents after receiving a mysterious phone call from Emily's House with a man's voice.......... It isn't long before we discover that something is off with lily and it isn't good. This child is in fact pure evil!
Before this movie I wasn't sure if I could imagine Renee zellwegger in a more serious role than Bridget Jones but I was wrong, she played this role brilliantly and the role of lily was spot on as well, that girl was proper creepy. For a 2009 movie, some scenes did look rather dated. For example the scene at the beach didn't look very believable. The movie was entertaining enough to keep me interested though, right to the end.
POGs Battle
Games
App
Get HYPE! Play for keeps as you battle other real humans in this grown-up schoolyard classic!...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Halloween Kills (2021) in Movies
Oct 17, 2021
I can safely say, that I'm not 100% sure whether I liked Halloween Kills or not. There were parts that I genuinely enjoyed, in no small part thanks to Michael Myers. As in Halloween (2018), this Myers is a brutal and unforgiving one. His aesthetic is great and he's intimidating as fuck. This movie pulls no punches in making him out to be a monster, shying further away from the days of rooting for slasher villains. To top it off, Kills easily has some of the best Michael moments in the entire franchise. This is bolstered by some truly fantastic cinematography.
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated A Game of Thrones: Hand of the King in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
I’ll be honest with you. I’m a big A Game of Thrones fan. We watch it religiously on Sunday nights at my dad’s house. Now, when I say “we” I mean my brother Bryan, my dad, and me. My wife has zero interest in it, and it’s really not her style anyway. So imagine my surprise when she agreed to play this little card game featuring the IP and she didn’t hate it! She didn’t really love it either, as shown by her guest score on the graphic above.
A Game of Thrones: Hand of the King (that’s a lot to say/type) is a dueling set collection card game. To setup, you create a grid of randomized character cards that all belong to one of the seven houses (save for Varys, who is our pawn in all this). Also reveal six of the 14 provided companion cards to be used for this game. Each player will control Varys on their turn, spreading influence and intrigue throughout the houses.
On your turn you will announce the house you would like to influence (Stark, Greyjoy, etc), and then move the Varys card in any of the four cardinal directions to a character belonging to your announced house. Any character cards you pass along the way bearing the same house will be collected along with the card on which you stopped. If you now have simple majority of characters in that house, you claim the corresponding house banner and place it in front of you to taunt your opponent. Should you influence the last character of said house you will be able to recruit and use one of the companion cards that are available from the beginning of the game. These cards are game-changers sometimes and provide very powerful abilities. Play continues in this fashion until Varys has no more legal moves. And that’s the game. Each player is trying to have simple majority ownership of the house banners at the end of the game.
Components. This is easy. There are square character cards featuring excellent artwork from The Mico (who always does an amazing job IMO), smaller companion cards, and the house banners. The cards are of good quality, and the banners are good too. I have no complaints about the components at all.
Now, I have only played this with my wife and she can be pretty ruthless when gaming. That’s pretty much expected for a game of this IP. That being said, this is an easy and light filler card game that is enjoyable, but not overly strategic. You really do not have to make many choices, as the placement of characters mostly determine how you are going to attack the grid. The companions, however, make this game much more interesting because they can be loose cannons and otherwise monkey wrenches in your opponent’s plans. Outside of being a simple annoyance, there isn’t a lot of player interaction unless you are specifically hate-drafting (which we typically do not do). After all, it’s not similar to its cousin big boy board game that destroys friendships over a 6 hour+ slog. This one is light and quick and a good filler for two. My wife may not love it, but I don’t think I will be getting rid of it. Kind of a nice surprise from a game I was gifted (and it was not originally on my wish list).
That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games (with the help of my wife Kristin) give this one a 7 / 12. Not the best game based on this IP but worth keeping for a quick filler.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/a-game-of-thrones-hand-of-the-king-review/
A Game of Thrones: Hand of the King (that’s a lot to say/type) is a dueling set collection card game. To setup, you create a grid of randomized character cards that all belong to one of the seven houses (save for Varys, who is our pawn in all this). Also reveal six of the 14 provided companion cards to be used for this game. Each player will control Varys on their turn, spreading influence and intrigue throughout the houses.
On your turn you will announce the house you would like to influence (Stark, Greyjoy, etc), and then move the Varys card in any of the four cardinal directions to a character belonging to your announced house. Any character cards you pass along the way bearing the same house will be collected along with the card on which you stopped. If you now have simple majority of characters in that house, you claim the corresponding house banner and place it in front of you to taunt your opponent. Should you influence the last character of said house you will be able to recruit and use one of the companion cards that are available from the beginning of the game. These cards are game-changers sometimes and provide very powerful abilities. Play continues in this fashion until Varys has no more legal moves. And that’s the game. Each player is trying to have simple majority ownership of the house banners at the end of the game.
Components. This is easy. There are square character cards featuring excellent artwork from The Mico (who always does an amazing job IMO), smaller companion cards, and the house banners. The cards are of good quality, and the banners are good too. I have no complaints about the components at all.
Now, I have only played this with my wife and she can be pretty ruthless when gaming. That’s pretty much expected for a game of this IP. That being said, this is an easy and light filler card game that is enjoyable, but not overly strategic. You really do not have to make many choices, as the placement of characters mostly determine how you are going to attack the grid. The companions, however, make this game much more interesting because they can be loose cannons and otherwise monkey wrenches in your opponent’s plans. Outside of being a simple annoyance, there isn’t a lot of player interaction unless you are specifically hate-drafting (which we typically do not do). After all, it’s not similar to its cousin big boy board game that destroys friendships over a 6 hour+ slog. This one is light and quick and a good filler for two. My wife may not love it, but I don’t think I will be getting rid of it. Kind of a nice surprise from a game I was gifted (and it was not originally on my wish list).
That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games (with the help of my wife Kristin) give this one a 7 / 12. Not the best game based on this IP but worth keeping for a quick filler.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/a-game-of-thrones-hand-of-the-king-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Neil Goddard (3 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
It all looked soooo promising
Contains spoilers, click to show
Let me say this upfront; David Harbour looks f---ing boss as Hellboy. The makeup is far superior to that of Ron Perlman, not that there was anything wrong with Ron Perlman’s, but with this new incarnation it’s all in the eyes. Deep red, sunken, pained. Sadly, that is all I can say about this movie that is one hundred percent genuinely positive. There are positives however, but they come with a big ‘however’.
I was initially a little concerned that we were getting a re-boot and not a direct sequel to Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008), especially as it still seemed so recent and was so well made. I know it was over a decade ago but quality is timeless, yeah? Then David Harbour was cast and Neil Marshall announced as director. Great, thought I, an actor I like and a director who’s put out some solid genre material. I saw the first picture of Harbour as Hellboy and I was genuinely excited. I saw the trailer and again, excited. Then I watched the film.
Eurgh, where to start?
Firstly, Ian McShane’s initial voice over is clunky and ill fitting, then they throw in some b@llocks about King Arthur and Excalibur. I had my first wobble here, as some of the effects seemed less than special.
Cue opening titles.
The film starts with a Mexican wrestling match that is purely exposition to let us know Hellboy is a hard drinking and hard fighting anti-hero working for an organisation that deals with the paranormal. The make up for his vampiric opponent is also great (can’t fault the makeup department), but the scene seemed superfluous. We get the nubbin of the story forming now; some horrible witchy wench from way back when was cut into bits and flung around jolly old England to prevent her from spreading a right ‘orrible plague. Turns out a potty-mouthed Liverpudlian pig-monster is collecting said bits in the hope of putting her back together in exchange for his normal appearance. Scouse pig-monster is quite entertaining.
Hellboy goes to England at the request of an upper-class paranormal society to help them kill giants; this goes t1ts up. Again, this seems like unnecessary exposition to introduce Alice, a medium who he rescued as a baby, who now rescues him in a transit van. We also get introduced to M11’s Agent Daimio. There something wrong with him, he keeps injecting himself with a serum to stop something happening. I knew at this point we’d get to see what it was eventually, probably at a juncture where something is needed to rescue someone important. However, at this point I had a feeling it would be bad, I just didn’t know how bad.
There some more fighting, some good effects, some mediocre effects and some terrible effects. There’s some good one-liners, there’s some dull and/or terrible dialogue and then we get the film’s conclusion.
There’s something I’ve been putting off mentioning as I didn’t want the entire review to be about it, and it could have been; the witchy wench at the heart of all this paranormal consternation, Nimue, is played by Milla Jovovich and she is terrible. From when she first opens her mouth to her predictable demise, she is terrible. Terrible. TERRIBLE.
I love some of the Resident Evil films but all she’s required to do is some slow-motion scissor kicks and shoot zombies and zombie-dogs in the face. She is tolerated, rather than enjoyed. Here she is emoting, or at least I think that’s what she was going for, and as a depiction of an evil entity bent of the destruction of all mankind, she is, for want of a better word, cack.
David Harbour and the Hellboy franchise deserve better than this. To be blunt, the franchise has better than this and Mike Mignola should be a bit more f---ing precious with his creation.
Hellboy (2004) was genuinely exciting; it was an origin story that bought that story full circle for its thrilling and apocalyptical conclusion. It has a wonderful nemesis, great support and breath-taking visuals. The re-tread of the origin story in Hellboy (2019) is, again, one more unnecessary diversion from a sketchy plot, which, for all its meagre bones takes a f-ck load of time to tell.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008) was equally impressive. It also introduced a fully formed community of creatures and customs hiding alongside mankind. It did so with nonchalant aplomb. Nothing seemed irrelevant or forced. For two films with almost identical running times, Hellboy (2019) tells less of a story with way more waffle.
So, I did mention there were some positives. David Harbour is great. He’s dour, sarcastic, defiant and funny, he just has no engaging story in which to be all those things. Ian McShane is good as the father figure but he is overshadowed by memories of the late, unbelievably great John Hurt. The story of a witch trying to destroy mankind is solid fantasy movie gold and the unleashing of her plague late in the final act is suitably hellish; bizarre demons emerging from city streets and tearing humans limb from limb, it’s bloody wonderful and wonderfully bloody. They all could have come straight out of a Clive Barker fever dream. However, it’s too little too late, by this point in the story we’ve had too many cutaways, too much shoddy CGI, and Agent Daimio stinking up many a scene with his ‘will he won’t he’ turn into something rubbish… he does.
The worst part of all this is I don’t know if they can come back from this. The film may have sunk the franchise at least for the next few years.
I do however, look forward to a re-boot in a decade or so, if we haven’t all been assimilated by aliens, overrun by AI robots or decimated by a supernatural plague bought on by some witchy wench with an axe to grind.
THREE WORD SUMMATION: Big Red Turd.
I was initially a little concerned that we were getting a re-boot and not a direct sequel to Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008), especially as it still seemed so recent and was so well made. I know it was over a decade ago but quality is timeless, yeah? Then David Harbour was cast and Neil Marshall announced as director. Great, thought I, an actor I like and a director who’s put out some solid genre material. I saw the first picture of Harbour as Hellboy and I was genuinely excited. I saw the trailer and again, excited. Then I watched the film.
Eurgh, where to start?
Firstly, Ian McShane’s initial voice over is clunky and ill fitting, then they throw in some b@llocks about King Arthur and Excalibur. I had my first wobble here, as some of the effects seemed less than special.
Cue opening titles.
The film starts with a Mexican wrestling match that is purely exposition to let us know Hellboy is a hard drinking and hard fighting anti-hero working for an organisation that deals with the paranormal. The make up for his vampiric opponent is also great (can’t fault the makeup department), but the scene seemed superfluous. We get the nubbin of the story forming now; some horrible witchy wench from way back when was cut into bits and flung around jolly old England to prevent her from spreading a right ‘orrible plague. Turns out a potty-mouthed Liverpudlian pig-monster is collecting said bits in the hope of putting her back together in exchange for his normal appearance. Scouse pig-monster is quite entertaining.
Hellboy goes to England at the request of an upper-class paranormal society to help them kill giants; this goes t1ts up. Again, this seems like unnecessary exposition to introduce Alice, a medium who he rescued as a baby, who now rescues him in a transit van. We also get introduced to M11’s Agent Daimio. There something wrong with him, he keeps injecting himself with a serum to stop something happening. I knew at this point we’d get to see what it was eventually, probably at a juncture where something is needed to rescue someone important. However, at this point I had a feeling it would be bad, I just didn’t know how bad.
There some more fighting, some good effects, some mediocre effects and some terrible effects. There’s some good one-liners, there’s some dull and/or terrible dialogue and then we get the film’s conclusion.
There’s something I’ve been putting off mentioning as I didn’t want the entire review to be about it, and it could have been; the witchy wench at the heart of all this paranormal consternation, Nimue, is played by Milla Jovovich and she is terrible. From when she first opens her mouth to her predictable demise, she is terrible. Terrible. TERRIBLE.
I love some of the Resident Evil films but all she’s required to do is some slow-motion scissor kicks and shoot zombies and zombie-dogs in the face. She is tolerated, rather than enjoyed. Here she is emoting, or at least I think that’s what she was going for, and as a depiction of an evil entity bent of the destruction of all mankind, she is, for want of a better word, cack.
David Harbour and the Hellboy franchise deserve better than this. To be blunt, the franchise has better than this and Mike Mignola should be a bit more f---ing precious with his creation.
Hellboy (2004) was genuinely exciting; it was an origin story that bought that story full circle for its thrilling and apocalyptical conclusion. It has a wonderful nemesis, great support and breath-taking visuals. The re-tread of the origin story in Hellboy (2019) is, again, one more unnecessary diversion from a sketchy plot, which, for all its meagre bones takes a f-ck load of time to tell.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008) was equally impressive. It also introduced a fully formed community of creatures and customs hiding alongside mankind. It did so with nonchalant aplomb. Nothing seemed irrelevant or forced. For two films with almost identical running times, Hellboy (2019) tells less of a story with way more waffle.
So, I did mention there were some positives. David Harbour is great. He’s dour, sarcastic, defiant and funny, he just has no engaging story in which to be all those things. Ian McShane is good as the father figure but he is overshadowed by memories of the late, unbelievably great John Hurt. The story of a witch trying to destroy mankind is solid fantasy movie gold and the unleashing of her plague late in the final act is suitably hellish; bizarre demons emerging from city streets and tearing humans limb from limb, it’s bloody wonderful and wonderfully bloody. They all could have come straight out of a Clive Barker fever dream. However, it’s too little too late, by this point in the story we’ve had too many cutaways, too much shoddy CGI, and Agent Daimio stinking up many a scene with his ‘will he won’t he’ turn into something rubbish… he does.
The worst part of all this is I don’t know if they can come back from this. The film may have sunk the franchise at least for the next few years.
I do however, look forward to a re-boot in a decade or so, if we haven’t all been assimilated by aliens, overrun by AI robots or decimated by a supernatural plague bought on by some witchy wench with an axe to grind.
THREE WORD SUMMATION: Big Red Turd.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Japan Took the J.A.P. Out of Me in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Summary: Lisa and her husband Peter are newlyweds—like, they were married four days ago—and they are moving to Japan. Lisa tells the first year of her life in Japan, and how she goes from a Jewish American Princess (JAP) with fancy cars and money and really good food to a housewife and a teacher who cooks and cleans. Lisa tells a heartwarming story of the first year of a beautiful marriage and hilarious adventures in Japan.
Thoughts: This book was really cute. I really liked it a lot. she used the f-bomb quite a lot, but i was able to overlook that and enjoy the story. Lisa is the kind of girl who at first seems to be the epitome of a princess—perfect body, favorite past time is shopping, cries when she breaks a nail. she seemed a bit shallow at first. but as the story went on and i got to know her, and see how see saw things and come to love the people she loved, i realized what kind of sweet girl she was.
One of my favorite parts of the story was when Lisa was so overwhelmed with teaching English, and her husband was being a typical guy and gave her a really pathetic gift for her 30th birthday. she got really upset and went to a bar with one of her Japanese friends, and they stayed there until about 3:00 am. she got home and Peter freaked out about her, and she just told him that she didn’t want to hear it right now. they didn’t talk for three days. she describes the tension between them, and the forgiveness after it, and you can see their marriage healed and continue to get stronger.
Characters: my favorite character was Peter. he was such a sweet guy willing to do anything for his wife whom he truly loved. It was a very good picture of marriage, too. both Lisa and Peter made sacrifices for each other, ranted about work and stupid things, sat on the balcony and had a beer, and once in a while complained to each other.
Plot: As this book was a memoir, I can’t really critique the plot, but i will say that I liked the way the book was organized—instead of chapters, there were six sections that divided up the book: Laundry, Cooking, Shopping, Cleaning, Transportation, and Intermission.
Recommendation: I sat down and read the whole second half of this book in one sitting. it was a light easy fun read, and a laugh to the last page. (my sister will testify. she was trying to write her book and I'd laugh and she’d yell “Haley be quiet!”) I recommend this book to ages 16+ (only because of the use of language and occasional sex.) and to anyone who needs a good laugh.
Thoughts: This book was really cute. I really liked it a lot. she used the f-bomb quite a lot, but i was able to overlook that and enjoy the story. Lisa is the kind of girl who at first seems to be the epitome of a princess—perfect body, favorite past time is shopping, cries when she breaks a nail. she seemed a bit shallow at first. but as the story went on and i got to know her, and see how see saw things and come to love the people she loved, i realized what kind of sweet girl she was.
One of my favorite parts of the story was when Lisa was so overwhelmed with teaching English, and her husband was being a typical guy and gave her a really pathetic gift for her 30th birthday. she got really upset and went to a bar with one of her Japanese friends, and they stayed there until about 3:00 am. she got home and Peter freaked out about her, and she just told him that she didn’t want to hear it right now. they didn’t talk for three days. she describes the tension between them, and the forgiveness after it, and you can see their marriage healed and continue to get stronger.
Characters: my favorite character was Peter. he was such a sweet guy willing to do anything for his wife whom he truly loved. It was a very good picture of marriage, too. both Lisa and Peter made sacrifices for each other, ranted about work and stupid things, sat on the balcony and had a beer, and once in a while complained to each other.
Plot: As this book was a memoir, I can’t really critique the plot, but i will say that I liked the way the book was organized—instead of chapters, there were six sections that divided up the book: Laundry, Cooking, Shopping, Cleaning, Transportation, and Intermission.
Recommendation: I sat down and read the whole second half of this book in one sitting. it was a light easy fun read, and a laugh to the last page. (my sister will testify. she was trying to write her book and I'd laugh and she’d yell “Haley be quiet!”) I recommend this book to ages 16+ (only because of the use of language and occasional sex.) and to anyone who needs a good laugh.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Children of Hare Hill in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Set in the National Trust owned gardens in Cheshire, Scott McKenzie writes about the loss of a parent from the perspective of young children. <i>The Children of Hare Hill </i>deals with the grief and confusion of those too young to fully comprehend the impact a death has upon the remaining family members. Charlotte, aged 8, and Ben, aged 5, lost their father two years ago and now it is time to say goodbye.
McKenzie sets the story in Hare Hill Gardens, a place he loves to visit with his own children. It is here that the two protagonists are scattering their father’s ashes. Around the gardens are thirteen wooden hares that visitors are encouraged to find, something that the children enjoyed doing with their father numerous times. After their difficult task, Charlotte and Ben fall asleep in the walled garden and, on waking, discover the secret of Hare Hill.
Although still in the same place they fell asleep, Charlotte and Ben are now in a magical version of the gardens where the hares are real animals that have been turned into wooden statues. In order to release them from the spell they have to complete several tricky quests. From riddles to number puzzles the children rely on each other’s knowledge and strengths to save the hares and discover who is waiting for them at the end.
When thinking about magical lands we tend to expect witches and wizards, broomsticks and complicated spells, however that is not the case in <i>The Children of Hare Hill</i>. The tasks that befall the siblings are ones that can be solved by “normal” children with the help of their memories of their father. It is an interesting concept and a beautiful way of remembering the life of a loved one.
It is not clear who the target audience is for this novel. Presumably the ages of the characters and the shortness of the story (166 pages) are more inclined to the younger reader, however the narrative and language suggests otherwise. A child of Charlotte’s age is unlikely to read books containing words such as “serendipitous”, “reminisced” and “crescendo”. Scott McKenzie is such an intellectual writer with a beautiful way with words, yet it backfires when targeted at children.
Putting the target audience issue aside, <i>The Children of Hare Hill</i> is a delightful short story that manages to evoke many emotions in the reader. The sadness that comes with reading about death is overshadowed by the bravery of the siblings, their love for one another and the fun they have solving the riddles and tasks as they race around the gardens. Instead of dwelling on the negative feelings the characters are inevitably feeling, McKenzie focuses on happy memories, making what could have been a heart-wrenching story into a heart warming one instead.
Set in the National Trust owned gardens in Cheshire, Scott McKenzie writes about the loss of a parent from the perspective of young children. <i>The Children of Hare Hill </i>deals with the grief and confusion of those too young to fully comprehend the impact a death has upon the remaining family members. Charlotte, aged 8, and Ben, aged 5, lost their father two years ago and now it is time to say goodbye.
McKenzie sets the story in Hare Hill Gardens, a place he loves to visit with his own children. It is here that the two protagonists are scattering their father’s ashes. Around the gardens are thirteen wooden hares that visitors are encouraged to find, something that the children enjoyed doing with their father numerous times. After their difficult task, Charlotte and Ben fall asleep in the walled garden and, on waking, discover the secret of Hare Hill.
Although still in the same place they fell asleep, Charlotte and Ben are now in a magical version of the gardens where the hares are real animals that have been turned into wooden statues. In order to release them from the spell they have to complete several tricky quests. From riddles to number puzzles the children rely on each other’s knowledge and strengths to save the hares and discover who is waiting for them at the end.
When thinking about magical lands we tend to expect witches and wizards, broomsticks and complicated spells, however that is not the case in <i>The Children of Hare Hill</i>. The tasks that befall the siblings are ones that can be solved by “normal” children with the help of their memories of their father. It is an interesting concept and a beautiful way of remembering the life of a loved one.
It is not clear who the target audience is for this novel. Presumably the ages of the characters and the shortness of the story (166 pages) are more inclined to the younger reader, however the narrative and language suggests otherwise. A child of Charlotte’s age is unlikely to read books containing words such as “serendipitous”, “reminisced” and “crescendo”. Scott McKenzie is such an intellectual writer with a beautiful way with words, yet it backfires when targeted at children.
Putting the target audience issue aside, <i>The Children of Hare Hill</i> is a delightful short story that manages to evoke many emotions in the reader. The sadness that comes with reading about death is overshadowed by the bravery of the siblings, their love for one another and the fun they have solving the riddles and tasks as they race around the gardens. Instead of dwelling on the negative feelings the characters are inevitably feeling, McKenzie focuses on happy memories, making what could have been a heart-wrenching story into a heart warming one instead.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Nov 23, 2019
Rocky For the Win
Yesterday can be quite the uneven movie at times, however its good ultimately outweighs its bad when it’s all said and done. When a struggling singer-songwriter gets hit by a bus, he awakens to a world where people have no knowledge of The Beatles. He uses their songs to become famous, but soon realizes that that fame comes at a cost.
Acting: 10
Himesh Patel delivers a strong performance as singer-songwriter Jack Malik. He was definitely overshadowed at times by even stronger performances from the likes of Joel Fry who plays his Road Manager Rocky and Kate McKinnon as Debra Hammer, a woman who latches on to Jack’s fame and runs with it. Even Ed Sheeran came through with a solid performance as himself.
Beginning: 9
Characters: 10
To expand on the above, I loved what the supporting characters brought to the table. Ed Sheeran’s caricature of himself is pretty hilarious and it’s refreshing to see a celebrity not taking himself too seriously. Rocky is all over the place and constantly screwing things up, but even his screwups have a certain endearing quality that brings you closer into his world. Meanwhile Debra Hammer is just a fireball, adding spice to every single scene she is in. She is one of those characters you can’t help but laugh at.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
As Jack’s popularity start to increase so does his fanbase and reach. He starts to travel the world and we’re graced with beautiful shots from all over the globe and across the UK. Different venues and swelling crowds keep the scenes fresh and advance the story in a smooth fashion.
Conflict: 5
The major conflict appears to be between Jack and his friend Ellie (Lily James). They both seem to have a thing for each other but Jack’s newfound fame throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the advancement of their relationship. I had trouble buying into the conflict a bit, however, as I never suspected the truth would be found out about Jack nor did I think at any point that him and Ellie wouldn’t end up together. Despite knowing this, the movie was still enjoyable. I just wish more feasible obstacles were put in place to advance the story properly.
Entertainment Value: 8
The movie is ultimately heartfelt and sweet which makes for enhancing its entertainment value. it was a treat watching someone who struggled for so long finally make it and live his dream. I also enjoyed watching Jack develop as a character and change his perspective on what he considered success.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
Overall: 82
I have to say, this was one of the most fun movie experiences I had all year. To hear these crowds succumb to all The Beatles music sung from the mouth of someone else is vastly unique. Although it does stumble at bit at the end, I highly recommend Yesterday.
Acting: 10
Himesh Patel delivers a strong performance as singer-songwriter Jack Malik. He was definitely overshadowed at times by even stronger performances from the likes of Joel Fry who plays his Road Manager Rocky and Kate McKinnon as Debra Hammer, a woman who latches on to Jack’s fame and runs with it. Even Ed Sheeran came through with a solid performance as himself.
Beginning: 9
Characters: 10
To expand on the above, I loved what the supporting characters brought to the table. Ed Sheeran’s caricature of himself is pretty hilarious and it’s refreshing to see a celebrity not taking himself too seriously. Rocky is all over the place and constantly screwing things up, but even his screwups have a certain endearing quality that brings you closer into his world. Meanwhile Debra Hammer is just a fireball, adding spice to every single scene she is in. She is one of those characters you can’t help but laugh at.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
As Jack’s popularity start to increase so does his fanbase and reach. He starts to travel the world and we’re graced with beautiful shots from all over the globe and across the UK. Different venues and swelling crowds keep the scenes fresh and advance the story in a smooth fashion.
Conflict: 5
The major conflict appears to be between Jack and his friend Ellie (Lily James). They both seem to have a thing for each other but Jack’s newfound fame throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the advancement of their relationship. I had trouble buying into the conflict a bit, however, as I never suspected the truth would be found out about Jack nor did I think at any point that him and Ellie wouldn’t end up together. Despite knowing this, the movie was still enjoyable. I just wish more feasible obstacles were put in place to advance the story properly.
Entertainment Value: 8
The movie is ultimately heartfelt and sweet which makes for enhancing its entertainment value. it was a treat watching someone who struggled for so long finally make it and live his dream. I also enjoyed watching Jack develop as a character and change his perspective on what he considered success.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
Overall: 82
I have to say, this was one of the most fun movie experiences I had all year. To hear these crowds succumb to all The Beatles music sung from the mouth of someone else is vastly unique. Although it does stumble at bit at the end, I highly recommend Yesterday.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 18, 2020
A Winning (enough) combination
I'm a sucker for Sherlock Holmes. I grew up watching the fantastic black and white Holmes films from the 1940's starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. I checked out '70's Holmes flicks like MURDER BY DECREE and the 7 PERCENT SOLUTION and then re-fell-in-love with Holmes with the Jeremy Brett BBC SHERLOCK HOLMES TV series of the 1980's and, of course, Benedict Cumberbatch's modern take on the master sleuth in the 2000's was "must see TV" for me. I was even on-board with Robert Downey Jr's. "take" on this iconic sleuth and was thrilled when Sir Ian McKellen portrayed an elderly Sherlock Holmes in MR. HOLMES.
So...I eagerly awaited the Netflix treatment of the "younger" sister of Sherlock Holmes in ENOLA HOLMES -and, I gotta say, I wasn't disappointed.
Based on the Young Adult series of novels by Nancy Springer, ENOLA HOLMES introduces us to the (heretofore unknown) younger sister of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes. Raised by a fiercely independent mother in the late 1880's, Enola goes searching for her when she goes missing and gets mixed up in the "The Case of the Missing Marquess" along the way.
Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS) is a winning, charismatic (enough) performer as Enola. She is a steady and sure hand at the helm of this ship throughout the course of this 2 hour and 3 minute adventure. While I would have liked her to command the screen more with her presence, she does enough to make it a good, solid, effort.
The supporting cast is just as good. Helena Bonham Carter (FIGHT CLUB) is perfectly cast as Enola's (and Sherlock's and Mycroft's) mother - she has that fierce streak of independence and "don't mess with me" energy while carving her own path. She is the type of character that one would go looking for if she went missing. Sam Claflin (HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE) is finely unrecognizable (at least to me) as Mycroft - written in this piece as the more "traditional" of the Holmes family and Henry Cavill (MAN OF STEEL) brings a strong arrogance to his portrayal of Sherlock. He also brings something else - heart - to this character, a character trait that has "traditional" fans of this character up in arms. For me, it works well in the context of this film.
As for the film itself - it is good (enough). I found myself enjoying the mystery and the characters and enjoyed my time in this world. It's not anything new, but it's like putting on a pair of old shoes - comforting to wear.
This is an adaptation of the first book of the series, and I, for one, hope that there are more. It's a winning combination that was pleasant to watch.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...I eagerly awaited the Netflix treatment of the "younger" sister of Sherlock Holmes in ENOLA HOLMES -and, I gotta say, I wasn't disappointed.
Based on the Young Adult series of novels by Nancy Springer, ENOLA HOLMES introduces us to the (heretofore unknown) younger sister of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes. Raised by a fiercely independent mother in the late 1880's, Enola goes searching for her when she goes missing and gets mixed up in the "The Case of the Missing Marquess" along the way.
Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS) is a winning, charismatic (enough) performer as Enola. She is a steady and sure hand at the helm of this ship throughout the course of this 2 hour and 3 minute adventure. While I would have liked her to command the screen more with her presence, she does enough to make it a good, solid, effort.
The supporting cast is just as good. Helena Bonham Carter (FIGHT CLUB) is perfectly cast as Enola's (and Sherlock's and Mycroft's) mother - she has that fierce streak of independence and "don't mess with me" energy while carving her own path. She is the type of character that one would go looking for if she went missing. Sam Claflin (HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE) is finely unrecognizable (at least to me) as Mycroft - written in this piece as the more "traditional" of the Holmes family and Henry Cavill (MAN OF STEEL) brings a strong arrogance to his portrayal of Sherlock. He also brings something else - heart - to this character, a character trait that has "traditional" fans of this character up in arms. For me, it works well in the context of this film.
As for the film itself - it is good (enough). I found myself enjoying the mystery and the characters and enjoyed my time in this world. It's not anything new, but it's like putting on a pair of old shoes - comforting to wear.
This is an adaptation of the first book of the series, and I, for one, hope that there are more. It's a winning combination that was pleasant to watch.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)