Search
Search results
∞ Infinity Loop
Games and Entertainment
App
Simple, relaxing, endless game. People love it! ∞ Infinity Loop is the most trending game in...
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire in Books
Oct 5, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3217515684">Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone</a> - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2371215543">Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets</a> - ★★★★★
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3275165909">Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban</a> - ★★★★
#4 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3328396363">Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-73.png"/>;
<b>Diving into the Harry Potter universe is a treat to my soul every time.</b>
There is something so familiar and comfortable to this world, especially Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, that always pulls me back to where it all started.
Since there is a lot of drama going on with the author at the moment, I want to say just this. While I do not agree with some of the author’s statements, her work meant a lot to me throughout my years, and I have chosen to draw a line between her personal life and her work. You may have a different opinion, and that is valid too.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling is one of my favorite books from the series. The year is filled with the Quidditch World Cup, the Triwizard Tournament, the fight for elves’ freedom, the beginning of the rising of evil and the terrible destiny of Cedric Diggory.
Harry has a weird dream about Voldemort at the beginning of the book. He lets Sirius Black know in a letter. Then, he and his friends, as well as the whole Weasley family attend the Quidditch World Cup, where there is an incident with Harry’s wand - that will start this book in a very dark way.
As the new school year of Hogwarts begins, Dumbledore has an exciting announcement to make. Hogwarts will be hosting the Triwizard tournament this year!
<b><i>“The Triwizard Tournament was first established some seven hundred years ago, as a friendly competition between the three largest European schools of wizardry - Hogwarts, Beauxbatons and Durmstrang. A champion was selected to represent each school, and the three champions competed in three magical tasks. The schools took it in turns to host the Tournament once every five years, and it was generally agreed to be a most excellent way of establishing ties between young witches and wizards of different nationalities - until, that is, the death toll mounted so high that the Tournament was discontinued.”</i></b>
When the Goblet of Fire selects the three champions for each house, everyone is ready to move on. Viktor Krum, from Durmstrang, was selected first, followed by Fleur Delacour of Beauxbatons. The Goblet selected Cedric Diggory as the Hogwarts Champion.
But then, the Goblet spits out one more name - Harry Potter!
But how is that possible, when Harry hasn’t put his name in?
<b><i>“Did you put your name into the Goblet of Fire, Harry?” Dumbledore asked calmly. </i></b>
Careful of the fact that someone wants Harry to be in danger, he still needs to compete in the three tasks of the tournament. I loved all three tasks and how smart some wizards had to be to overcome their challenges.
I also really loved the Yule Ball, and the atmosphere it had. Everyone seemed happier and forgot their worries for the evening. Things were calming down before the real storm began.
The part I loved the most, which wasn’t included in the movies, was Harmione’s fight for the rights of the elves. She fought that they deserved to be free and be paid for their work, not be slaves to witches and wizards. On top of all this, what I loved most was Dobby’s story in this whole situation.
<b>Also, did you know this?</b>
Hermione’s name is pronounced “Her-my-oh-nee”. I have somehow always known this at the back of my mind, but because it’s pronounced as “Her-my-nee” in the movies, I have been saying it like that for a very long time.
<b><i>“If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”</i></b>
Still a favourite and still amazing. After all this time? Always!
<b><i>“Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery.”</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3217515684">Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone</a> - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2371215543">Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets</a> - ★★★★★
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3275165909">Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban</a> - ★★★★
#4 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3328396363">Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-73.png"/>;
<b>Diving into the Harry Potter universe is a treat to my soul every time.</b>
There is something so familiar and comfortable to this world, especially Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, that always pulls me back to where it all started.
Since there is a lot of drama going on with the author at the moment, I want to say just this. While I do not agree with some of the author’s statements, her work meant a lot to me throughout my years, and I have chosen to draw a line between her personal life and her work. You may have a different opinion, and that is valid too.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling is one of my favorite books from the series. The year is filled with the Quidditch World Cup, the Triwizard Tournament, the fight for elves’ freedom, the beginning of the rising of evil and the terrible destiny of Cedric Diggory.
Harry has a weird dream about Voldemort at the beginning of the book. He lets Sirius Black know in a letter. Then, he and his friends, as well as the whole Weasley family attend the Quidditch World Cup, where there is an incident with Harry’s wand - that will start this book in a very dark way.
As the new school year of Hogwarts begins, Dumbledore has an exciting announcement to make. Hogwarts will be hosting the Triwizard tournament this year!
<b><i>“The Triwizard Tournament was first established some seven hundred years ago, as a friendly competition between the three largest European schools of wizardry - Hogwarts, Beauxbatons and Durmstrang. A champion was selected to represent each school, and the three champions competed in three magical tasks. The schools took it in turns to host the Tournament once every five years, and it was generally agreed to be a most excellent way of establishing ties between young witches and wizards of different nationalities - until, that is, the death toll mounted so high that the Tournament was discontinued.”</i></b>
When the Goblet of Fire selects the three champions for each house, everyone is ready to move on. Viktor Krum, from Durmstrang, was selected first, followed by Fleur Delacour of Beauxbatons. The Goblet selected Cedric Diggory as the Hogwarts Champion.
But then, the Goblet spits out one more name - Harry Potter!
But how is that possible, when Harry hasn’t put his name in?
<b><i>“Did you put your name into the Goblet of Fire, Harry?” Dumbledore asked calmly. </i></b>
Careful of the fact that someone wants Harry to be in danger, he still needs to compete in the three tasks of the tournament. I loved all three tasks and how smart some wizards had to be to overcome their challenges.
I also really loved the Yule Ball, and the atmosphere it had. Everyone seemed happier and forgot their worries for the evening. Things were calming down before the real storm began.
The part I loved the most, which wasn’t included in the movies, was Harmione’s fight for the rights of the elves. She fought that they deserved to be free and be paid for their work, not be slaves to witches and wizards. On top of all this, what I loved most was Dobby’s story in this whole situation.
<b>Also, did you know this?</b>
Hermione’s name is pronounced “Her-my-oh-nee”. I have somehow always known this at the back of my mind, but because it’s pronounced as “Her-my-nee” in the movies, I have been saying it like that for a very long time.
<b><i>“If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”</i></b>
Still a favourite and still amazing. After all this time? Always!
<b><i>“Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery.”</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Nov 5, 2021
Unique
Writer/Director Edgar Wright has developed into one of the more unique film makers working today with a stylistic look, feel and sound to all of his films. Long known as the Director of the Simon Pegg/Nick Frost comedies (SHAUN OF THE DEAD, HOT FUZZ and AT WORLD’S EDGE), Wright started coming into his own with the under-rated SCOTT PILGRIM vs. THE WORLD and the marvelous BABY DRIVER and with his latest film, the trippy thriller LAST NIGHT IN SOHO, Wright has graduated - in my eyes - as a Director who’s work is “must watch” whenever they come out.
LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is unique, stylized, stunning - both visually and aurally - mind-bending, tense and satisfying. A truly unique film by a unique filmmaker.
To tell the tale of LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is to spoil it. The less you know about it, the better. But, as the trailers suggest, a modern young fashion student is in London and is transported into the “swinging ‘60’s London and ends up living, vicariously, the life of another. That’s all I’ll say. I would recommend just going in and let the story wash all over you - both through the eyes and through the ears - which is why I would recommend this film been seen in a theater (or, at the very least, on a set-up with a killer sound system).
Because of the highly stylized and “go with it” feel of this film, the performances have a tendency to move to the background, but they are very well done. Thomasin McKenzie (JOJO RABBIT) is a strong choice as the Fashion Student who has this “adventure” (to say more is to spoil), she brings the right amount of reality and “unreality” to her character. Anya Taylor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is superb as Sandie, the object of the “adventure”. She isn’t asked to do much more than be mysterious - and she does it well.
Wright, wisely, fills the rest of the film with strong supporting players - Matt Smith (DR. WHO), the great Terence Stamp (THE LIMEY) and, most importantly, Dame Diana Rigg (Emma Peel in THE AVENGERS in the 1960’s, in her final film role before her death in September 2020), all bring their “A” game to the festivities and fill their roles well.
It’s not a perfect film, the beginning drags on a bit before things start to get good (and weird) and their is a superfluous subplot involving some “Mean Girls” at the Fashion School that our heroine attends in today’s world - a subplot that never really goes anywhere. The ending, also, does go “over the top”, but by that time, I was swept up in the style of this film and forgave it it’s flaws.
I ended up having LAST NIGHT IN SOHO-type dreams, and indication that this film struck a chord with me and is going to stay with me for awhile - and is probably worth a re-watch (it certainly is one of those types of films that can be different upon a re-watch).
Well worth the effort to check it out on the Big Screen - certainly the visuals and sound will make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is unique, stylized, stunning - both visually and aurally - mind-bending, tense and satisfying. A truly unique film by a unique filmmaker.
To tell the tale of LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is to spoil it. The less you know about it, the better. But, as the trailers suggest, a modern young fashion student is in London and is transported into the “swinging ‘60’s London and ends up living, vicariously, the life of another. That’s all I’ll say. I would recommend just going in and let the story wash all over you - both through the eyes and through the ears - which is why I would recommend this film been seen in a theater (or, at the very least, on a set-up with a killer sound system).
Because of the highly stylized and “go with it” feel of this film, the performances have a tendency to move to the background, but they are very well done. Thomasin McKenzie (JOJO RABBIT) is a strong choice as the Fashion Student who has this “adventure” (to say more is to spoil), she brings the right amount of reality and “unreality” to her character. Anya Taylor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is superb as Sandie, the object of the “adventure”. She isn’t asked to do much more than be mysterious - and she does it well.
Wright, wisely, fills the rest of the film with strong supporting players - Matt Smith (DR. WHO), the great Terence Stamp (THE LIMEY) and, most importantly, Dame Diana Rigg (Emma Peel in THE AVENGERS in the 1960’s, in her final film role before her death in September 2020), all bring their “A” game to the festivities and fill their roles well.
It’s not a perfect film, the beginning drags on a bit before things start to get good (and weird) and their is a superfluous subplot involving some “Mean Girls” at the Fashion School that our heroine attends in today’s world - a subplot that never really goes anywhere. The ending, also, does go “over the top”, but by that time, I was swept up in the style of this film and forgave it it’s flaws.
I ended up having LAST NIGHT IN SOHO-type dreams, and indication that this film struck a chord with me and is going to stay with me for awhile - and is probably worth a re-watch (it certainly is one of those types of films that can be different upon a re-watch).
Well worth the effort to check it out on the Big Screen - certainly the visuals and sound will make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Coral & Bone in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Coral & Bone was a waste of my time. An absolute waste, because I could have spent 2 days reading other books that are so much more amazing (and obviously, worth my attention).
When reading the synopsis and first starting out the book, I thought Coral & Bone would be promising Sirens! Mermaids are the bad guys! How cool is that!
Problem? Early on in the book, I could already tell like I can with most books this would not go very well. The writing feels a bit choppy.
<blockquote>She was going through bookstore withdrawals and losing her sanity at the same time. She would have to try and persuade her mom to take her to Portland soon. If she could just nestle between the aisles of books, get lost for few hours, she might be able to harness some of these crazy new feelings she had been experiencing.</blockquote>
Think of a river, or any type of water source. If the water is choppy, it doesn't really bear a good sign. But if the water flows, it's pretty calm. It's precisely how I felt with Duane's writing. It just didn't seem to go really well and I felt as though I were reading a sample from a grammar book. "Sophia did this. Sophia did that. Sophia flipped. Sophia pouted. Sophia expressed her dislike."
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O2UQC1S43r4/VCDMO-p0xiI/AAAAAAAAD3I/_ZPjiz-LnPs/s1600/Throw%2BOut%2Ba%2BWindow.gif"; border="0">
BORING. Thing is, I'm not exactly one to give up on a book when it's just 4%. In fact, I personally thought I was a bit drained out... especially from Puritan readings (it's quite the brain exercise if you ask me). Except... it gets worse.
It's CONFUSING. If there's one thing I really dislike, it's people not giving me clarification. Please. If a math teacher doesn't teach you clearly how to do a problem, how do you pass a math class with a passable grade? But goody gumdrops, does Duane confuse me.
<blockquote>She discovered, through meditation, that she was able to speak to her mom. Are you still there? Mom?</blockquote>
If her mom's throat got slit and she's dead, how is Tage able to speak to her mom, even if it's through meditation? Is her mom a ghost? Is Tage just thinking about what her mother would say if she were still alive?
<blockquote>"They took the bait."</blockquote>
What bait? You would think that as Tage and Daspar are working together toward a common goal, Daspar would reveal what the bait would be. He doesn't. What the heck?
<blockquote>"After he consumed Puras soul he was different."</blockquote>
Eh? Whoa whoa whoa. When did we enter sucking your soul out zone? How does one do that exactly, and why did Daspar do it? Protection? Did Pura sacrifice herself?
<blockquote>Remember I told you the Elosians didnt like sirens?</blockquote>
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. If Etlis is for shifters and humans stay on Earth, yet Elosians don't like Sirens, where do Sirens live? Are they immigrants? Migrants? The world building has a good start, but it's too confusing to be a fully developed world.
<blockquote>"When Natalie died
Went missing, Pepper chimed in.
Died, Catch said.
Halen looked to Dax. Is she dead or alive?
We dont know for sure. We havent found her body, but that doesnt mean the hunters didnt destroy it.</blockquote>
Goodness, even the characters are confused. "Where's Natalie? Where's Natalie? Where's Natalie?" "Oh, let's just throw Halen in and see how she does and go from there because we're not sure if Natalie's alive or not!" What happens if Natalie really is alive? Ping, pong, let's have a sister fight!
<img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rFkaK8GKFOE/VCDMTJnhFsI/AAAAAAAAD3Q/1Xq3NVQhCXM/s1600/i%2Bcan't.gif"; border="0" height="179" width="320">
And speaking of Halen, our main character, I have quite the complaint about her as a character.
For fun, I pretty much thought her name was Haden. Funny, because I actually read The Shadow Prince and what do you know? Haden's the main character (well, one of them).
It's probably even a coincidence they have similar personalities and are all mopey. "I can't do this! I give up! Blah blah blah!" It's all acceptable for the first book... usually. It becomes quite the problem if the character cries wolf quite loudly. Ahem... their bark is apparently bigger than their bite.
But here's one positive aspect: Halen isn't a quitter. Despite the fact she's completely frustrated all the time, she continues.
Unfortunately, it was pretty much the only thing about Coral & Bone I liked. When that happens, especially at around 60%, it pretty much means all hope is lost and I should move on.
With all that said, you don't really want to waste your time with Coral & Bone unless you're looking for a book that confuses you. Perhaps with major tweaks, Duane's latest work would certainly be one you wouldn't want to simply pass by. But no, that's not the case.
-----------------
Review copy provided by the author originally for the blog tour
Original Rating: 1.5 out of 5
Original review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/dnf-review-coral-and-bone-by-tiffany-duane.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
When reading the synopsis and first starting out the book, I thought Coral & Bone would be promising Sirens! Mermaids are the bad guys! How cool is that!
Problem? Early on in the book, I could already tell like I can with most books this would not go very well. The writing feels a bit choppy.
<blockquote>She was going through bookstore withdrawals and losing her sanity at the same time. She would have to try and persuade her mom to take her to Portland soon. If she could just nestle between the aisles of books, get lost for few hours, she might be able to harness some of these crazy new feelings she had been experiencing.</blockquote>
Think of a river, or any type of water source. If the water is choppy, it doesn't really bear a good sign. But if the water flows, it's pretty calm. It's precisely how I felt with Duane's writing. It just didn't seem to go really well and I felt as though I were reading a sample from a grammar book. "Sophia did this. Sophia did that. Sophia flipped. Sophia pouted. Sophia expressed her dislike."
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O2UQC1S43r4/VCDMO-p0xiI/AAAAAAAAD3I/_ZPjiz-LnPs/s1600/Throw%2BOut%2Ba%2BWindow.gif"; border="0">
BORING. Thing is, I'm not exactly one to give up on a book when it's just 4%. In fact, I personally thought I was a bit drained out... especially from Puritan readings (it's quite the brain exercise if you ask me). Except... it gets worse.
It's CONFUSING. If there's one thing I really dislike, it's people not giving me clarification. Please. If a math teacher doesn't teach you clearly how to do a problem, how do you pass a math class with a passable grade? But goody gumdrops, does Duane confuse me.
<blockquote>She discovered, through meditation, that she was able to speak to her mom. Are you still there? Mom?</blockquote>
If her mom's throat got slit and she's dead, how is Tage able to speak to her mom, even if it's through meditation? Is her mom a ghost? Is Tage just thinking about what her mother would say if she were still alive?
<blockquote>"They took the bait."</blockquote>
What bait? You would think that as Tage and Daspar are working together toward a common goal, Daspar would reveal what the bait would be. He doesn't. What the heck?
<blockquote>"After he consumed Puras soul he was different."</blockquote>
Eh? Whoa whoa whoa. When did we enter sucking your soul out zone? How does one do that exactly, and why did Daspar do it? Protection? Did Pura sacrifice herself?
<blockquote>Remember I told you the Elosians didnt like sirens?</blockquote>
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. If Etlis is for shifters and humans stay on Earth, yet Elosians don't like Sirens, where do Sirens live? Are they immigrants? Migrants? The world building has a good start, but it's too confusing to be a fully developed world.
<blockquote>"When Natalie died
Went missing, Pepper chimed in.
Died, Catch said.
Halen looked to Dax. Is she dead or alive?
We dont know for sure. We havent found her body, but that doesnt mean the hunters didnt destroy it.</blockquote>
Goodness, even the characters are confused. "Where's Natalie? Where's Natalie? Where's Natalie?" "Oh, let's just throw Halen in and see how she does and go from there because we're not sure if Natalie's alive or not!" What happens if Natalie really is alive? Ping, pong, let's have a sister fight!
<img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rFkaK8GKFOE/VCDMTJnhFsI/AAAAAAAAD3Q/1Xq3NVQhCXM/s1600/i%2Bcan't.gif"; border="0" height="179" width="320">
And speaking of Halen, our main character, I have quite the complaint about her as a character.
For fun, I pretty much thought her name was Haden. Funny, because I actually read The Shadow Prince and what do you know? Haden's the main character (well, one of them).
It's probably even a coincidence they have similar personalities and are all mopey. "I can't do this! I give up! Blah blah blah!" It's all acceptable for the first book... usually. It becomes quite the problem if the character cries wolf quite loudly. Ahem... their bark is apparently bigger than their bite.
But here's one positive aspect: Halen isn't a quitter. Despite the fact she's completely frustrated all the time, she continues.
Unfortunately, it was pretty much the only thing about Coral & Bone I liked. When that happens, especially at around 60%, it pretty much means all hope is lost and I should move on.
With all that said, you don't really want to waste your time with Coral & Bone unless you're looking for a book that confuses you. Perhaps with major tweaks, Duane's latest work would certainly be one you wouldn't want to simply pass by. But no, that's not the case.
-----------------
Review copy provided by the author originally for the blog tour
Original Rating: 1.5 out of 5
Original review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/dnf-review-coral-and-bone-by-tiffany-duane.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Roar started off slowly, but before long I was completely enamoured by the story. I personally love stories where elemental powers are part of the lore. Roar had a similar, yet unique take on those special abilities.
There are people in the world, called Stormlings, who are able to use their affinities to battle storms. In this land, those abilities relate to the storms that plague the kingdoms and towns. A Stormling may have an affinity for sky fire and be able to battle lightning - or they may have an affinity for tornados. Many battle storms not only to protect their lands but in the attempt to gain more affinities. If strong enough, a Stormling could take the heart of the storm (which manifests as a rock or gem) and use it to channel their abilities.
Aurora is the future Queen of Pavan, but she has yet to show any hint of the power needed to protect her people. As a result, her mother sets up an arranged marriage with the second born son of a neighboring kingdom. Not all is as it appears and Rora sets out to discover the truth. She soon learns that Stormlings are not the only people with the ability to fight storms and realizes that she must learn from these storm hunters so that she can avoid the path her life is currently on.
Aurora begins the book as a strong female character despite the fact that she is forced into a more meek, agreeable role in order to secure the marriage, so it may not seem that way. Although she has not been able to access the magic her blood should give her, she has not rested on her laurels. Rora occasionally trains with the guards in swordsmanship, reads whatever books she can get her hands on, is quite skilled in a number of languages and can chart her course by the stars. While she is not the typical heroine we might expect to save the day, she does grow over the course of the novel and will continue to do so in the second book.
As the majority of the book does not take place in the palace, we do not see much from the Locke family but I am incredibly intrigued by their familial relationships and the Prince himself. He is a dark, strong and imposing figure who is out to claim the throne - but may be less ruthless than he seems. While we do not such much of him, I expect there will be a lot more character development in the second book and I'm looking forward to that.
Locke, the storm hunter, was probably my favourite main character - although I loved the storm hunter crew as a whole. They had such unique personalities, tales and roles in the group and who wouldn't join a group of storm hunters? That would be amazing. Anyway, Locke started to remind me after a while of that over-protective Fae male personality that we see so often in Sarah J Maas' books (which can become tiresome) but his storm hunting prowess won me over. The author wrote each storm, its feeling and the hunters fighting it so brilliantly that those were definitely my favourite scenes in the novel.
This book seemed to set up the world, the magic system and the main characters well but leave plenty of room for development. We don't even see the character who is likely to be the villain until about 75% of the book is over. I'm intrigued by the villain's story and abilities, and can't wait to see where it goes in the second book.
The world is what drew me in and kept me wanting more, despite the cliches, tropes, and mid-level character development. The romance itself was probably the most off-putting because it was so unbelievable to me. It's not necessarily the chemistry and interactions between the two, but rather the way the author writes the male's point of view. To me, it just didn't sound like a guy was thinking those thoughts. Both of her main male characters became almost immediately obsessed with Aurora, wanted to protect her at any cost, thought about her all of the time, etc. As I mentioned before, that overprotective Fae male mentality. While it may seem sweet that they want to be protective, it borders on being too much (and sometimes crosses the line), which is not a healthy relationship dynamic to romanticize. I don't want to give more specific examples and spoil anything. This is not to say that men cannot be emotional and effusive because they can, but for me, just the way that it was done didn't read authentically. Those were the times I felt most drawn out of the narrative.
This book ends with the type of cliffhanger that most books should end on. You are not utterly destroyed and heartbroken that the author has ended this book with such big questions and yet the next is not due out for another year - you are completely in love with the story and the final scenes just make you excited to continue reading.
For me, the book was a little slow to start but once Rora goes on the journey with the storm hunters I think the book picks up a lot. I've seen a few people put the book down because they couldn't get into it and I would just recommend trying to push through a little longer and see if that changes for you. This is an upper-YA novel that I would recommend to ya/teen readers who enjoy fantasy and character growth in their novels.
There are people in the world, called Stormlings, who are able to use their affinities to battle storms. In this land, those abilities relate to the storms that plague the kingdoms and towns. A Stormling may have an affinity for sky fire and be able to battle lightning - or they may have an affinity for tornados. Many battle storms not only to protect their lands but in the attempt to gain more affinities. If strong enough, a Stormling could take the heart of the storm (which manifests as a rock or gem) and use it to channel their abilities.
Aurora is the future Queen of Pavan, but she has yet to show any hint of the power needed to protect her people. As a result, her mother sets up an arranged marriage with the second born son of a neighboring kingdom. Not all is as it appears and Rora sets out to discover the truth. She soon learns that Stormlings are not the only people with the ability to fight storms and realizes that she must learn from these storm hunters so that she can avoid the path her life is currently on.
Aurora begins the book as a strong female character despite the fact that she is forced into a more meek, agreeable role in order to secure the marriage, so it may not seem that way. Although she has not been able to access the magic her blood should give her, she has not rested on her laurels. Rora occasionally trains with the guards in swordsmanship, reads whatever books she can get her hands on, is quite skilled in a number of languages and can chart her course by the stars. While she is not the typical heroine we might expect to save the day, she does grow over the course of the novel and will continue to do so in the second book.
As the majority of the book does not take place in the palace, we do not see much from the Locke family but I am incredibly intrigued by their familial relationships and the Prince himself. He is a dark, strong and imposing figure who is out to claim the throne - but may be less ruthless than he seems. While we do not such much of him, I expect there will be a lot more character development in the second book and I'm looking forward to that.
Locke, the storm hunter, was probably my favourite main character - although I loved the storm hunter crew as a whole. They had such unique personalities, tales and roles in the group and who wouldn't join a group of storm hunters? That would be amazing. Anyway, Locke started to remind me after a while of that over-protective Fae male personality that we see so often in Sarah J Maas' books (which can become tiresome) but his storm hunting prowess won me over. The author wrote each storm, its feeling and the hunters fighting it so brilliantly that those were definitely my favourite scenes in the novel.
This book seemed to set up the world, the magic system and the main characters well but leave plenty of room for development. We don't even see the character who is likely to be the villain until about 75% of the book is over. I'm intrigued by the villain's story and abilities, and can't wait to see where it goes in the second book.
The world is what drew me in and kept me wanting more, despite the cliches, tropes, and mid-level character development. The romance itself was probably the most off-putting because it was so unbelievable to me. It's not necessarily the chemistry and interactions between the two, but rather the way the author writes the male's point of view. To me, it just didn't sound like a guy was thinking those thoughts. Both of her main male characters became almost immediately obsessed with Aurora, wanted to protect her at any cost, thought about her all of the time, etc. As I mentioned before, that overprotective Fae male mentality. While it may seem sweet that they want to be protective, it borders on being too much (and sometimes crosses the line), which is not a healthy relationship dynamic to romanticize. I don't want to give more specific examples and spoil anything. This is not to say that men cannot be emotional and effusive because they can, but for me, just the way that it was done didn't read authentically. Those were the times I felt most drawn out of the narrative.
This book ends with the type of cliffhanger that most books should end on. You are not utterly destroyed and heartbroken that the author has ended this book with such big questions and yet the next is not due out for another year - you are completely in love with the story and the final scenes just make you excited to continue reading.
For me, the book was a little slow to start but once Rora goes on the journey with the storm hunters I think the book picks up a lot. I've seen a few people put the book down because they couldn't get into it and I would just recommend trying to push through a little longer and see if that changes for you. This is an upper-YA novel that I would recommend to ya/teen readers who enjoy fantasy and character growth in their novels.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Villagers in Tabletop Games
Jan 16, 2020
The saying is, “It takes a village…” but that village didn’t just magically appear overnight. Creating a prosperous and thriving community takes not only time, but hard work, ingenuity, and a little bit of luck! Villagers is a game that takes you through that process, as you strive to create a village of renown.
Disclaimer: I do not intent to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but rather provide an overview of the gameplay, and how it differs between multiplayer and solo play. -L
Villagers is a game of card drafting and tableau building in which players are competing to build the most prosperous village in the land. The game is played over a series of rounds, each broken up into the Draft Phase and the Build Phase. During the Draft Phase, players take turns drafting villagers from the available card stacks into their hands. During the Build Phase, players can add villagers from their hand to their tableau. Certain cards can be chained together, and provide more powers and/or end-game points – but they must be added to the village in chain order. At two points throughout the game, the First and Second Market Phases, all players will collect money depending on which cards they have in their villages. The game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase is completed, and the player with the most money is the winner!
As a solo game, Villagers plays very similarly to group play, with only a couple of differences. First, the solo player is battling against The Countess, an AI character, to create the best village. The Countess is incorporated into the game in a unique way. During the Draft Phase, whenever you draft a villager to your hand, you also select an available villager to go straight into the village of the Countess. The Build Phase is carried out as normal. At the end of every round, you blindly draw a face-down card from the Reserve (draw deck), and it automatically goes into the Countess’ village as well. The other twist to a solo game of Villagers is that there are Event cards in play each round. Events are resolved after the Build Phase, before beginning the next round, and are often detrimental to the player – like making you pay extra gold to unlock padlocks, for example. The First and Second Market Phases work the same as they do in a multiplayer game, and the game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase. If you have managed to accrue more money than the Countess, then you have won!
I want to start off by saying that I love Villagers. Card drafting and set collection are my JAM, and this is a game that highlights those really well without making it too complicated. Even when playing solo, those mechanics still feel balanced, and that makes the overall game enjoyable. From my previous Solo Chronicles, I have stated how much I dislike “Beat your own high score” solo modes, so I was extremely happy when I saw that Villagers pitted the solo player against an AI character – the Countess. For the most part, I think that the Countess works really well in this game. When you draft a card, the Countess gets a card as well. But the best part about that is that you get to choose which card goes to the Countess. That means that you are able to keep some semblance of strategy in your game, because you have the power to decide what cards go where, for the most part.
The other neat thing about solo play is the inclusion of Event cards in the game – which are not present in group play. The Events add an extra element that you have to take into account for the given round. Depending on the Event, it could compromise your strategy quite a bit, but that’s what keeps it interesting. You can’t just get into a groove and grind through the rounds, drafting everything you want, when you want. You have to adapt your strategy based upon the Event(s) in play, and the Countess’ village.
The only downside for me is that at the end of every round, the Countess gets the top face-down card from the Reserve, and depending on what card that is, it could throw a wrench into the strategy you’ve been working hard to set up. I guess that mimics a multiplayer game in a sense, though, because you can’t always control what your opponents will do. The biggest downside about solo play for me has nothing to do with actual gameplay, but rather table space. Every card that goes into the Countess’ village is a stand-alone, meaning that they do not chain together like cards in your village will. So depending on how long the game goes, the Countess’ village will get to be pretty large, and hog lots of the table. I think that just means I need a bigger table though…
All that being said – is Villagers a good game for solo play? I would say mostly yes. Strategy is still required for success, but adaptability of that strategy is what keeps the game engaging and entertaining. Nothing can quite replace the multiplayer experience, but playing against the AI character keeps the competitiveness alive in the game. As someone who does a lot of solo playing these days, I am glad that I have added Villagers to my collection. If you haven’t gotten a chance to play Villagers yet, I would highly recommend checking it out. Solo or multiplayer, it’s a great time!
Disclaimer: I do not intent to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but rather provide an overview of the gameplay, and how it differs between multiplayer and solo play. -L
Villagers is a game of card drafting and tableau building in which players are competing to build the most prosperous village in the land. The game is played over a series of rounds, each broken up into the Draft Phase and the Build Phase. During the Draft Phase, players take turns drafting villagers from the available card stacks into their hands. During the Build Phase, players can add villagers from their hand to their tableau. Certain cards can be chained together, and provide more powers and/or end-game points – but they must be added to the village in chain order. At two points throughout the game, the First and Second Market Phases, all players will collect money depending on which cards they have in their villages. The game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase is completed, and the player with the most money is the winner!
As a solo game, Villagers plays very similarly to group play, with only a couple of differences. First, the solo player is battling against The Countess, an AI character, to create the best village. The Countess is incorporated into the game in a unique way. During the Draft Phase, whenever you draft a villager to your hand, you also select an available villager to go straight into the village of the Countess. The Build Phase is carried out as normal. At the end of every round, you blindly draw a face-down card from the Reserve (draw deck), and it automatically goes into the Countess’ village as well. The other twist to a solo game of Villagers is that there are Event cards in play each round. Events are resolved after the Build Phase, before beginning the next round, and are often detrimental to the player – like making you pay extra gold to unlock padlocks, for example. The First and Second Market Phases work the same as they do in a multiplayer game, and the game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase. If you have managed to accrue more money than the Countess, then you have won!
I want to start off by saying that I love Villagers. Card drafting and set collection are my JAM, and this is a game that highlights those really well without making it too complicated. Even when playing solo, those mechanics still feel balanced, and that makes the overall game enjoyable. From my previous Solo Chronicles, I have stated how much I dislike “Beat your own high score” solo modes, so I was extremely happy when I saw that Villagers pitted the solo player against an AI character – the Countess. For the most part, I think that the Countess works really well in this game. When you draft a card, the Countess gets a card as well. But the best part about that is that you get to choose which card goes to the Countess. That means that you are able to keep some semblance of strategy in your game, because you have the power to decide what cards go where, for the most part.
The other neat thing about solo play is the inclusion of Event cards in the game – which are not present in group play. The Events add an extra element that you have to take into account for the given round. Depending on the Event, it could compromise your strategy quite a bit, but that’s what keeps it interesting. You can’t just get into a groove and grind through the rounds, drafting everything you want, when you want. You have to adapt your strategy based upon the Event(s) in play, and the Countess’ village.
The only downside for me is that at the end of every round, the Countess gets the top face-down card from the Reserve, and depending on what card that is, it could throw a wrench into the strategy you’ve been working hard to set up. I guess that mimics a multiplayer game in a sense, though, because you can’t always control what your opponents will do. The biggest downside about solo play for me has nothing to do with actual gameplay, but rather table space. Every card that goes into the Countess’ village is a stand-alone, meaning that they do not chain together like cards in your village will. So depending on how long the game goes, the Countess’ village will get to be pretty large, and hog lots of the table. I think that just means I need a bigger table though…
All that being said – is Villagers a good game for solo play? I would say mostly yes. Strategy is still required for success, but adaptability of that strategy is what keeps the game engaging and entertaining. Nothing can quite replace the multiplayer experience, but playing against the AI character keeps the competitiveness alive in the game. As someone who does a lot of solo playing these days, I am glad that I have added Villagers to my collection. If you haven’t gotten a chance to play Villagers yet, I would highly recommend checking it out. Solo or multiplayer, it’s a great time!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Shaft (2019) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Bland, boring and uninteresting
Were you the one clamoring for a sequel to the year 2000 Samuel L. Jackson SHAFT (the sequel to the original 1971 Richard Roundtree SHAFT)? Did you remember there WAS a 2000 version of SHAFT? Do you remember the 1971 SHAFT?
Doesn't matter.
The makers of this film certainly don't remember those films for - besides casting Jackson and Roundtree - there is no similarity to either of these films.
The first SHAFT was a Blacksploitation film starring Roundtree with mucho gunfire and bloodshed and SHAFT 2000 (as I'll call it) is a full on action flick with Jackson as Roundtree's nephew fighting crime. SHAFT 2019 is none of these - the Samuel L. Jackson Shaft is now the SON of Richard Roundtree and partners with his son JJ ,John Shaft, Jr. (played by Jessie T. Usher) to investigate the death of his friend.
Okay...fine. I can forgive the change in tone and the "tweak" (I'm being generous) to the timeline. What I can't forgive is the weak script (why write any good, or interesting, dialogue when we can have all of the characters say Samuel L. Jackson's signature motherf*^#er over and over) by 3 different writers (never a good sign) that were all, clearly, just in it for the paycheck.
Jessie T. Usher (he played Will Smith's son in the also ill-advised sequel to INDEPENDENCE DAY) is a bland lead with no gravitas and no swagger that starts out young and naive and is supposed to develop (under the tutelage of his father) street smarts but, really, just becomes annoying.
Regina Hall (GIRLS TRIP), Titus Welliver (BOSCH), Method Man (!) and Luna Lauren Velez (DEXTER) are all sleepwalking through underwritten roles just counting the minutes until they can take their paychecks to the bank.
At the heart of all of this "missed opportunities" is Director Tim Story (RIDE ALONG) he directs this film like he has someplace else to be, never missing an opportunity to be obvious (for example, JJ's friend - Karim - who's death sparks what passes for a plot in this film - might as well be walking around with a "Dead Man Walking" sign on him). Story's direction is lazy (and that's doing injustice to the word lazy) and obvious with no spark of ingenuity or imagination to be found.
And then there's Samuel L. Jackson as SHAFT. He defines the term "sleepwalking through the picture" looking bored and uninterested throughout and HE'S THE BEST THING IN THE FILM! Thank goodness his charisma and charm ooze out of him without really trying - for he didn't really try here.
Save 2 hours of your life - skip SHAFT - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Doesn't matter.
The makers of this film certainly don't remember those films for - besides casting Jackson and Roundtree - there is no similarity to either of these films.
The first SHAFT was a Blacksploitation film starring Roundtree with mucho gunfire and bloodshed and SHAFT 2000 (as I'll call it) is a full on action flick with Jackson as Roundtree's nephew fighting crime. SHAFT 2019 is none of these - the Samuel L. Jackson Shaft is now the SON of Richard Roundtree and partners with his son JJ ,John Shaft, Jr. (played by Jessie T. Usher) to investigate the death of his friend.
Okay...fine. I can forgive the change in tone and the "tweak" (I'm being generous) to the timeline. What I can't forgive is the weak script (why write any good, or interesting, dialogue when we can have all of the characters say Samuel L. Jackson's signature motherf*^#er over and over) by 3 different writers (never a good sign) that were all, clearly, just in it for the paycheck.
Jessie T. Usher (he played Will Smith's son in the also ill-advised sequel to INDEPENDENCE DAY) is a bland lead with no gravitas and no swagger that starts out young and naive and is supposed to develop (under the tutelage of his father) street smarts but, really, just becomes annoying.
Regina Hall (GIRLS TRIP), Titus Welliver (BOSCH), Method Man (!) and Luna Lauren Velez (DEXTER) are all sleepwalking through underwritten roles just counting the minutes until they can take their paychecks to the bank.
At the heart of all of this "missed opportunities" is Director Tim Story (RIDE ALONG) he directs this film like he has someplace else to be, never missing an opportunity to be obvious (for example, JJ's friend - Karim - who's death sparks what passes for a plot in this film - might as well be walking around with a "Dead Man Walking" sign on him). Story's direction is lazy (and that's doing injustice to the word lazy) and obvious with no spark of ingenuity or imagination to be found.
And then there's Samuel L. Jackson as SHAFT. He defines the term "sleepwalking through the picture" looking bored and uninterested throughout and HE'S THE BEST THING IN THE FILM! Thank goodness his charisma and charm ooze out of him without really trying - for he didn't really try here.
Save 2 hours of your life - skip SHAFT - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Justin Taylor (59 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
The action pieces were kinda on point (4 more)
Of course the Rock kills it as usual and brings his a game or at least tries his best
The trio of Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan and Jack Black are the best things about this movie
It does something original with the source material
A good movie to sit down and eat popcorn to
Although this is a sequel to Jumanji yeah in case y'all didn't know it's a sequel and outside of a couple of references including a name-drop of Robin Williams character from the original it has nothing to do with the first (2 more)
Also basic plot getting sucked into a video game which is a plot that we have seen in Many other things (Spy Kids, Tron and fairly odd parents to name a few) and while it does it in a fresh way at the end of the day it's the exact same plot from the first
The villain is pretty much meh but if u like Jumanji I think you probably have no problem with him
Jumanji was passable
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ok this movie ain't perfect but it did do it's purpose and I personally thought it wasn't bad,
Too be honest I wasn't crazy about a Jumanji sequel especially after the late great Robin Williams passed away. But they did some things good and some things not so good so I'll start with the good first
1. It does something fresh with the original so in case you haven't seen it spoiler warning the board game we all know and love turned into a video game which is something I was kinda expecting but I wasn't surprised and it was nice seeing it getting updated for a new generation
2. The characters in the Jumanji world are hilariously entertaining with props particularly to Karen Gillan and Jack Black..they bring it in this movie and they had me laughing my butt off. Not totally saying that the Rock and Kevin Hart weren't funny either but they all are great
3 the action sequences are awesomely executed and exciting as it should be. Nothing more to say.
Now for the bad
1. Elephant in the room, the plot, ok so getting stuck in a video game is something that's been done to death but they do something creative with it but at the end of the day it's the exact same plot of the first movie.
2. The villains pretty much meh, he's your standard I'm gonna take what I want and no one can stop me type villain and yes in case your wondering his last name is van pelt.
3. Speaking of homages to the first movie don't expect too much outside of a couple of references including a name drop of Williams character from the original movie it has nothing to do with the first movie so it's like a standalone sequel and a soft reboot which means the events of the original still exist but they're pretty much making some retcons.
Overall I didn't hate this movie, I laughed at anything but I think if u take ur nostalgia glasses off and watch it with a new point of view youll enjoy it also this movie did something right because its getting a sequel next year
Too be honest I wasn't crazy about a Jumanji sequel especially after the late great Robin Williams passed away. But they did some things good and some things not so good so I'll start with the good first
1. It does something fresh with the original so in case you haven't seen it spoiler warning the board game we all know and love turned into a video game which is something I was kinda expecting but I wasn't surprised and it was nice seeing it getting updated for a new generation
2. The characters in the Jumanji world are hilariously entertaining with props particularly to Karen Gillan and Jack Black..they bring it in this movie and they had me laughing my butt off. Not totally saying that the Rock and Kevin Hart weren't funny either but they all are great
3 the action sequences are awesomely executed and exciting as it should be. Nothing more to say.
Now for the bad
1. Elephant in the room, the plot, ok so getting stuck in a video game is something that's been done to death but they do something creative with it but at the end of the day it's the exact same plot of the first movie.
2. The villains pretty much meh, he's your standard I'm gonna take what I want and no one can stop me type villain and yes in case your wondering his last name is van pelt.
3. Speaking of homages to the first movie don't expect too much outside of a couple of references including a name drop of Williams character from the original movie it has nothing to do with the first movie so it's like a standalone sequel and a soft reboot which means the events of the original still exist but they're pretty much making some retcons.
Overall I didn't hate this movie, I laughed at anything but I think if u take ur nostalgia glasses off and watch it with a new point of view youll enjoy it also this movie did something right because its getting a sequel next year
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
It is hard to believe it has been 19 years since “Unbreakable” arrived in cinemas as the film seemed to setup a sequel but it did not look like it would come to fruition. That all changed in 2016 when “Split” arrived and shocked audiences with a late reveal that showed a connection to the film. Writer/Director M. Night Shyamalan has wasted no time in bringing the new film to fans with the arrival of “GLASS”. The film picks up soon after the events of “Split” as The Horde embodied by 23 personalities in the form of Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy) continues to kidnap young girls to serve to his highly dangerous 24th personality The Beast.
Security expert David Dunn (Bruce Willis) along with the help of his son attempts to locate the Horde as a new group of girls has gone missing. In time David locates The Beast and the two clash; but end up captured by authorities and sent to a facility for evaluation.
Their captive Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) believes their special abilities are in their minds and that they really do not have the special abilities they believe they do. Each of them have a special cell designed to restrain them as David is under threat of being doused with water while Kevin has a series of strobes which will halt him and trigger a new personality.
Added to the mix is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), who has been at the facility under heavy sedation after the events of “Unbreakable”.
As the therapy unfolds it becomes clear that an elaborate game of cat and mouse is underway between Price and her charges as each seems to have their own agenda. This all builds to a very unusual final act which left me pondering if I enjoyed the final result or was disappointed with it.
The film seems to slowly be building to a big finale but yet it is far more restrained than one would expect. The film has a constant theme of Super Heroes and their traditional stories and roles as well as that of their Super Villains.
One expects a massive Battle Royale complete with elaborate FX but the film takes a more restrained approach and in doing so may disappoint some fans while pleasing others. The film naturally has its twist moments and while I will not spoil it, I can say I predicted it before I even saw the film. When I saw “Split” I actually told my wife my theory and low and behold it was true. I also predicted the twists for many of Shyamalan’s previous films so I had hoped for a bit more in this regard. The film does offer up some interesting options for another sequel or Spin-Off and the cast was very good especially McAvoy who adds to his menagerie of characters by showing audiences a few more of the ones previously undisclosed.
The film is at times very enjoyable and at times a bit frustrating as it seems to deviate from themes and elements that were setup earlier. That being said it does very much appear that this could indeed be just the start of something much bigger in the series.
http://sknr.net/2019/01/16/glass/
Security expert David Dunn (Bruce Willis) along with the help of his son attempts to locate the Horde as a new group of girls has gone missing. In time David locates The Beast and the two clash; but end up captured by authorities and sent to a facility for evaluation.
Their captive Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) believes their special abilities are in their minds and that they really do not have the special abilities they believe they do. Each of them have a special cell designed to restrain them as David is under threat of being doused with water while Kevin has a series of strobes which will halt him and trigger a new personality.
Added to the mix is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), who has been at the facility under heavy sedation after the events of “Unbreakable”.
As the therapy unfolds it becomes clear that an elaborate game of cat and mouse is underway between Price and her charges as each seems to have their own agenda. This all builds to a very unusual final act which left me pondering if I enjoyed the final result or was disappointed with it.
The film seems to slowly be building to a big finale but yet it is far more restrained than one would expect. The film has a constant theme of Super Heroes and their traditional stories and roles as well as that of their Super Villains.
One expects a massive Battle Royale complete with elaborate FX but the film takes a more restrained approach and in doing so may disappoint some fans while pleasing others. The film naturally has its twist moments and while I will not spoil it, I can say I predicted it before I even saw the film. When I saw “Split” I actually told my wife my theory and low and behold it was true. I also predicted the twists for many of Shyamalan’s previous films so I had hoped for a bit more in this regard. The film does offer up some interesting options for another sequel or Spin-Off and the cast was very good especially McAvoy who adds to his menagerie of characters by showing audiences a few more of the ones previously undisclosed.
The film is at times very enjoyable and at times a bit frustrating as it seems to deviate from themes and elements that were setup earlier. That being said it does very much appear that this could indeed be just the start of something much bigger in the series.
http://sknr.net/2019/01/16/glass/