Search

Search only in certain items:

Rambo: Last Blood (2019)
Rambo: Last Blood (2019)
2019 | Action, Adventure, Drama
Last Bore
Rambo Last Blood is a bloody mess of a movie that feels so disjointed from all the other rambo films it will leave you confused and unfulfilled. Its starts of fine enough, we see Rambo in an ordinary life taking care of the farm doing average day to day tasks and growing old but clearly still troubled and haunted by his memories of war. We are then introduced to a couple of people he cares a lot about and from there trouble starts to brew. Problem is this beginning segment is an absolute shambles, not only is it extremely boring and tedious every single character is highly unlikeable, hollow, bland and annoying with no personality either. Then on top of that we have writing and dialog that are woeful almost like no effort was put into them whatsoever and the sad part is we are forced to sit through well over an hour of this too. This hour at times was actually so painful to watch especially for a film that knows most of us are only there for the kills. After waiting that long and sitting through a story that feels like it was meant for a Taken sequel you would think the action would make up for it..... right?. Wrong, while action is ok its still not great coming off more of a brief kill montage more than anything else. Kills are deliciously brutal thats for sure but they feel rushed because the film just cant wait to move on to the next one as fast as it can. All this brutal killing also at times can feel a little ujustified too making me acquire a disconnect from the Rambo we have come to know and love. If this film was meant to be another sequel it fails, if it was meant to be a Rambo tribute it fails and to top it all off it just ends abruptly out of no where with no real conclusion or point to be made. Last Blood seems like it didnt try to be a good film or a fun film and it left me confused, bored and baffled to why it exists at all. There are a few brief over the top cool kills but all in all its a pointless movie thats not worth anyones time. To top it all off my bike got stolen while I was inside watching this too and I have to say I got more excitement from seeing that had happened than watching this crap. Rambo Last Blood more like Rambo Last Bike.
  
Magnus Chase and the Ship of the Dead: Magnus Chase Series Book 3
Magnus Chase and the Ship of the Dead: Magnus Chase Series Book 3
Rick Riordan | 2017 | Science Fiction/Fantasy, Young Adult (YA)
10
8.3 (4 Ratings)
Book Rating
Magnus & Alex (5 more)
Friendship
Big Banana
Chase Space
Percabeth
Pottery Barn
Dragon Dad (3 more)
Ragnarok
A Ship Made Out of Zombie Nails (Gross)
Abusive Dads
World Ending? Not again...
Stop the end of the world. Sounds easy enough, right?

How many times are children of the Gods going to have to do this before one of them has the foretold quest to alter it where life as we know it is not in peril?

Magnus Chase and his friends have to stop Loki, ensure Naglfar doesn't sail, and prevent Ragnarok. Oh, also all while fighting giants with pottery, getting Godly blood and spit mead from giants in the hopes it'll help Magnus in an insult contest with Loki, seeing if Granddad Njord's ex-wife will help them out or let them freeze like a pre-made dinner meal supermom prepared for someone else to pop in the oven. Did I mention Floor 19 Crew has to do all these tasks without dying because not being in Hotel Valhalla equals no responding to life in their rooms. No do overs. No second chances. Simply dead. Easy as pie.

To not spoil this for those of you who have yet to read book three I'll end my sum of The Ship of the Dead and continue on with my praise.

Though there is the question of the voices, if this is the last of Magnus Chase then I have to say I'm pleased with our trilogy of the Norse Gods. In Sword of Summer, Hammer of Thor, and now The Ship of the Dead we've had the characters fleshed out. We've seen them grown. We've witness them overcome personal trails and fight through fears (can we say good job Magnus for fighting wolves even though it is clearly a phobia?). This has proved even those waiting for their day of judgement for centuries can change who they are and accept things even if they are not okay with them.

Somehow in 400 pages that pasts of Halfborn, Mallory, and T.J. were laid out to be part of the main plot, but also show development of the characters and how their own lessons would help on the quest. We were actually able to learn how far they have come from who they were before they died, after death, and who they are now. It was even written how to show they are still learning their lessons and have things to overcome now, which is perfectly okay as long as they stay strong and levelheaded.

The daughters/son of Loki had to overcome their own fears of being good enough despite what poison their fathers have caused them to believe. Even Hearthstone has to return to face the curse over his family one more time. Even Magnus has a realization he has wroth and even if some may not see it, he does and so do his friends.

The Ship of the Dead seems to be about looking at your fears and flaws, realizing they are there, and having to make the choice what you will do about them. Will you allow them to take over your life? Or will you work to be a better person? Are you going to let one moment in the past ruin your future? Or will you take the lesson and forgive yourself, forgive someone else, and live the best life you can? Will you let a parents shortcomings decide how you live? Or will you choose to look beyond their views and become a better person than they are?
  
    Weather Now for iPhone

    Weather Now for iPhone

    Weather and Travel

    (0 Ratings) Rate It

    App

    Amazingly beautiful 3D images of our planet draws your attention for so long that you may forget...

A Frozen Heart
A Frozen Heart
Elizabeth Rudnick | 2015 | Children, Fiction & Poetry, Young Adult (YA)
8
8.0 (2 Ratings)
Book Rating
Contains spoilers, click to show
It seems like adaptations of Frozen and Frozen 2 are everywhere right now: it must be so hard for an author to come up with a story that is different enough to draw readers in but still in-keeping with the story. Luckily, Elizabeth Rudnick’s skilled writing turns the typical Frozen tale on its head: telling it solely from the perspective of Anna and Hans.

It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.

Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)

Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.


Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?

Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.


Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.

Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.

I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?

Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?

‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
  
Stan & Ollie (2018)
Stan & Ollie (2018)
2018 | Biography, Comedy, Drama
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).

As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.

Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.

My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.

The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.

Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).

Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.

Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.

I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:

“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”

“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
  
40x40

Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV

Nov 13, 2018 (Updated Nov 13, 2018)  
The Haunting of Hill House
The Haunting of Hill House
2018 | Horror
Predictable jumpscares (2 more)
Bad acting
Crappy script
Overhyped Garbage
The Haunting Of Hill House is a 2018 Netflix series directed by Mike Flanagan, who directed last year's fantastically creepy adaption of Stephen King's 'Gerald's Game'. Hill House even features some of the same cast members in Carla Gugino and Henry Thomas, whom I both really like. Before diving into it, I thought that this show was going to be tailor made for me, with a brilliant cast and the same subtle but terrifying horror that Flanagan used in Gerald's Game.

However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."

What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.

If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.

Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.

The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.

The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.

If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.

Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
  
40x40

Lee (2222 KP) Nov 13, 2018

?... did your girlfriend enjoy it though?

40x40

Brian Eno recommended Early Works by Steve Reich in Music (curated)

 
Early Works by Steve Reich
Early Works by Steve Reich
(0 Ratings)
Album Favorite

"I could easily talk for several hours just about this. It was particularly this piece called 'It's Gonna Rain' that I heard with my friend Peter Schmidt, the painter. I'd met Peter while I was at art college and he was a very, very distinctive and unusual character. He was a German Jew who'd come over to England in the '30s and was a very good poker player because it was impossible to know what he was thinking. He was a very inscrutable person. Most people found it very hard to be with him as you'd say something to him and he'd just look at you. But I liked him a lot and we got on very well, and it turned out we'd been thinking about a lot of similar things. One of the things we used to do was sit around at his place in Stockwell and explore new music. Generally it was he who would play things to me and one day he said, ""Have you heard this?"" and my life changed. Reich recorded this in '65, so that's 51 years old and fucking hell, what have we been doing for half a century? The first thing that happens when you're listening to that is that the repetitive element of it gradually makes you start to lose focus of the pieces that keep repeating. You start hearing the little differences. It's a little bit like the way a frog's eye works. It doesn't scan like ours do, it stays fixed on a scene and very quickly the rods and cones get saturated with everything that doesn't move. So as soon as something does move, like a fly, that's the only thing that the frog sees. I think the ears behave like that when they're presented with something highly repetitive like this. Your ears quickly saturate or habituate with the common stuff and they start to pick up details. I remember the first time I heard 'It's Gonna Rain', I started to zone in on the pigeons, because this was out in the street, it was a recording of a street preacher so you can hear cars and horns and then you start to hear these birds but only after a while, after the other stuff has cleared out of your consciousness. That's amazing because what was making the music was my brain and that was the first time I'd realised that, as a composer, you could co-opt a listener's brain. So suddenly, wow, that's another 100 per cent of the universe opening up. When you put something out into the world that is kind of incomplete and it takes your consciousness and the errors of your perceptual mechanism to actually make it into something, that totally changed my idea of what music could be. The actual amount of material used is tiny, the loop of ""it's gonna rain"" is not even a second, and that's the only element used in that section. You think, bloody hell, that's economy, and I've always loved economy. At the time I first heard this we were in a period of maximum indulgence in pop music. Sixteen-track recorders had just appeared so suddenly so many people were just putting so much shit onto everything just because you could. Every spice in the cupboard. Suddenly I heard this and it was so stark and effective. The other thing about it is that within it is a mechanism that I've subsequently used a lot, which is the idea of having things running out of sync with each other. Again, your whole experience of music until then had been to do with synchronisation. Everything sticks together and then at this point everything changes together. What happens in this piece is that you get the same cycle but running so that on each repetition they're in a slightly different place in relation to each other. So you have an automatic generator of variety and I use that on so much of my work. That became my go-to technique for making something interesting straight away."

Source
  
A Simple Favor (2018)
A Simple Favor (2018)
2018 | Crime, Mystery, Thriller
A Dangerous Liaison.
Wow, this one starts spectacularly well! Who’s not to love some “Thomas Crown” style titles over a French language version of “Music to watch girls by”? Brilliant!

We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.

Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?

How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.

There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.

Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….

“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”

Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.

The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.

Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.

I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.

Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.

Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!