Search
Search results
Text Extractor & Translator
Travel and Utilities
App
Do you want to read a restaurant menu, a manual or a road side billboard written in a language that...
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The latest in the popular Call of Duty series has arrived with Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII. The game has made the controversial decision to forgo the traditional campaign in favor of a Battle Royale mode known as Blackout and a more expansive online experience which includes more Zombie modes and a greater emphasis on gameplay.
I played the game first at E3 and then again during the Beta phases for the game so I had a decent familiarity with what to expect when the full release version of the game arrived.
After several days of playing the game, I have to say it is to me a mixed bag and many aspects of it disappointed me which is very frustrating as fan of the series since the very first game.
The look and feel of the game does not come across to me as a new game but instead to me look and play like DLC for Call of Duty: Black Ops 3. Many of the maps seem familiar and have been updated from their appearances in previous games. The same holds true for the weapons and kill streaks. I am not saying it is not fun, but it all has a sense of having seen most of it before.
Another very annoying change to the game is the severe limitation of grenades in the game. Usually a player has a grenade option which comes in handy when Snipers setup behind cover. Without the ability to lob a grenade to get Snipers out from cover, players are easy pickings, especially when the first appear on the screen. You can unload a full clip into a player at a distance and still end up dead with one shot from a sniper. As such you have to wait until you reach level 42 in order to add them to your customized loadout and even then they are very Nerfed from what players have come to expect.
The multiplayer modes are what you have come to expect as there are the Team Deathmatch variations as well as the Capture and Control modes and a new mode called Heist where players need to capture or prevent the capture of a target.
For me the most enjoyable aspect of the game was the Zombie modes as not only were the players I was matched with usually very helpful, but they were also much friendlier than many of the other people I encountered.
The Blackout mode is very popular with gamers but not being a fan of the One and Done mode of play, I found myself enjoying the vast details of the map and preferring to work with a team, capturing vehicles, and such. I have seen multiple players unload point blank on a player in this mode only to see them walk away and one shot kill their attackers. This is either a hack or an example of how imbalanced things can be at times and you will see multiple instances of players taking numerous hits and walking away while others go down with one shot.
Black Ops IIII does not have a regenerative health system and instead requires players to use a timed injection in order to restore health.
This is all designed to foster teamwork and to make the game more appealing to the eSports community. While this is nice, it deviates from much of what has made the game so appealing from the start.
The game to me seems like it was hurried to market as it released on October 12th vs the traditional November release date. I am sure a big part of this was a desire to beat Red Dead Redemption 2 to market but in doing so it seems that things are missing from the final product.
There is much to like about the game as it is still an exciting and intense experience but to me is the first Call of Duty game to not feel shiny and new but instead more of the same in many cases.
The developers have supported the game with numerous updates and there are more on the way as well as planned DLC down the road so the game as it is now is likely to change in the next few months as more feedback is given to developers and new features are added.
Hopefully they will also look to add a campaign at a later date as although it is fun, it seems lacking and dated in many aspects as the changes seem like a step back to me rather than progress.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/23/call-of-duty-black-ops-iiii-2/
I played the game first at E3 and then again during the Beta phases for the game so I had a decent familiarity with what to expect when the full release version of the game arrived.
After several days of playing the game, I have to say it is to me a mixed bag and many aspects of it disappointed me which is very frustrating as fan of the series since the very first game.
The look and feel of the game does not come across to me as a new game but instead to me look and play like DLC for Call of Duty: Black Ops 3. Many of the maps seem familiar and have been updated from their appearances in previous games. The same holds true for the weapons and kill streaks. I am not saying it is not fun, but it all has a sense of having seen most of it before.
Another very annoying change to the game is the severe limitation of grenades in the game. Usually a player has a grenade option which comes in handy when Snipers setup behind cover. Without the ability to lob a grenade to get Snipers out from cover, players are easy pickings, especially when the first appear on the screen. You can unload a full clip into a player at a distance and still end up dead with one shot from a sniper. As such you have to wait until you reach level 42 in order to add them to your customized loadout and even then they are very Nerfed from what players have come to expect.
The multiplayer modes are what you have come to expect as there are the Team Deathmatch variations as well as the Capture and Control modes and a new mode called Heist where players need to capture or prevent the capture of a target.
For me the most enjoyable aspect of the game was the Zombie modes as not only were the players I was matched with usually very helpful, but they were also much friendlier than many of the other people I encountered.
The Blackout mode is very popular with gamers but not being a fan of the One and Done mode of play, I found myself enjoying the vast details of the map and preferring to work with a team, capturing vehicles, and such. I have seen multiple players unload point blank on a player in this mode only to see them walk away and one shot kill their attackers. This is either a hack or an example of how imbalanced things can be at times and you will see multiple instances of players taking numerous hits and walking away while others go down with one shot.
Black Ops IIII does not have a regenerative health system and instead requires players to use a timed injection in order to restore health.
This is all designed to foster teamwork and to make the game more appealing to the eSports community. While this is nice, it deviates from much of what has made the game so appealing from the start.
The game to me seems like it was hurried to market as it released on October 12th vs the traditional November release date. I am sure a big part of this was a desire to beat Red Dead Redemption 2 to market but in doing so it seems that things are missing from the final product.
There is much to like about the game as it is still an exciting and intense experience but to me is the first Call of Duty game to not feel shiny and new but instead more of the same in many cases.
The developers have supported the game with numerous updates and there are more on the way as well as planned DLC down the road so the game as it is now is likely to change in the next few months as more feedback is given to developers and new features are added.
Hopefully they will also look to add a campaign at a later date as although it is fun, it seems lacking and dated in many aspects as the changes seem like a step back to me rather than progress.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/23/call-of-duty-black-ops-iiii-2/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Vaughn and Golding cross the pond to deliver more of the same.
You would probably need to be living under a rock not to know that “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” is the follow-up film to Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman’s highly successful 2015 offering “Kingsman: The Secret Service”: a raucous, violent and rude entry into the spy-caper genre. And the sequel is more of the same: why mess with a crowd-pleasing formula?
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Les Misérables (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Words cannot express how amazing this movie is. For those of you who have shouldered through the modern-day musical revival; suffering through the questionable singing talents of many stars as “Phantom of the Opera,” “Chicago,” “Moulin Rouge,” “Sweeny Todd,” and that abysmal rendition of “Nine” – I can assure you, that “Les Mis” will change that perception. For once, the casting crew took the time to select a cast capable of the repertoire’s vocal demands (and Les Mis is very vocally demanding – as most operatic pieces are). It’s apparent that each singer was heavily vocally coached and trained, some faring more so than others. While this is no replacement for raw talent, I can assure you that the cast was downright fantastic.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Bob Ross: Art of Chill Game in Tabletop Games
Jun 30, 2021
Bob Ross is a household name in the United States and has been for quite a while. The man is a legend and part of the Trinity of Mankind (which also includes Mister Rogers and Steve Irwin). Anyone who has watched this man paint instantly recognizes a beautiful human being with extreme talent and the ability to lull audiences into a state of euphoria as he paints mountains, creeks, cabins, and trees. And of course, every one should have a friend. His wholesomeness goes to 11! So what do I find one day whilst perusing the strange board game wares in my local Target one day three years ago but a Bob Ross game. I wasn’t expecting much, but had to have it for nostalgic reasons. Was my money wasted or is there something in this box worth actually playing?
Bob Ross: Art of Chill is a set collection, hand management, card drafting game that has its players attempting to complete masterful paintings before the master does in order to collect bonus “chill points” to win the game. Whomever manages to reach ultimate chill status will be victorious and can return to feeding Peapod, their rascally pocket squirrel.
To setup, place the easel and one of the shuffled painting panels upon it. Place the other panels (paintings) nearby. Place the main scoreboard nearby as well and place the shuffled Chill Cards on its space upon the board. The Technique Cards deck and the Art Supplies Card decks will be shuffled separately and placed below the board with four cards from each deck revealed as an offer. Place the Bob Mover (Bobeeple) on the easel in the first location printed on the panel. Each player will receive a palette, the scoring cube of their color to be placed on the scoreboard, the three Feature Markers, and three random Art Supplies Cards. The game may now begin!
On a turn players will be rolling the Bob die and carrying out its action. These actions are playing a paint card from hand onto their palette, drawing one Art Supplies Card from the deck to their hand, performing one free Action prior to the Action phase, or resolving the Bob die face. The Bob die face requires players to reveal a new Chill Card and resolve its immediate effects, or effects that will remain in play until a new Chill Card is revealed. Secondly, the Bobeeple will move to the next printed stopping point on the panel.
Once the die has been rolled and resolved, the active player will be able to take any three actions available in any order: Draw an Art Supplies Card (from the deck or from the offer), Sweep the Art Supplies Card (discard all face-up cards and reveal four new ones), Apply Paint to Your Palette (by placing it on your palette from your hand of cards), Wash Your Palette (by discarding cards from one of the palette areas to clear it), Earn a Technique Card (by discarding two like-cards from the hand of cards in order to score more VP for painting features in the future), or Paint a Feature (by discarding the required brush from the player’s hand of cards and the correct matching paints already applied to their palette).
Once complete, the next player will take their turn of rolling the die and completing three actions. Should players paint a feature on the panel before Bob moves to that spot on the panel the player(s) will gain extra bonus Chill points. Players may still paint features for points if Bob already has as well, they just will not receive the bonus Bob points. Turns will continue in this fashion until the moment one player has reached ultimate Chill and won the game.
Components. This game has a fair amount of components and I am happy to say they are all great! The cardboard components (palettes, score board) are good. The cards are all lovely linen-finished. The other player components are fine as well. The painting panels are excellent and feature actual Bob Ross masterpieces, and there are 15 double-sided panels in the box! The coolest component is certainly the easel though. It seems to be a somewhat real and functional easel (not that you would really want to paint on it) and it amps up the table appeal when setup and in play. I love the components and I am so glad that Big G Creative made a Bob Ross game with beautiful components. Anything less would be sacrilege.
It probably comes as no surprise that I love this game. I have always loved watching Bob Ross from when I was a child even up through my adulthood and I am relieved to be able to still watch him in action via Netflix. The game, though, is rather surprising. I certainly wasn’t expecting to like this as much as I do and was quite shocked to find out that there was actual substance in a Bob Ross game. Especially when it was stationed next to “games” like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, Throw Throw Burrito, and the like. I enjoy the nostalgia in seeing my favorite colors in my hands like Phthalo Blue, Cadmium Orange, and Sap Green.
I don’t know if I would really consider this a gateway game, though I believe it really depends on the gamers with whom you are playing. There will be many times when you are concentrating on collecting the colors needed to finish a feature before Bob only to frustratingly never see that color on offer nor in the cards you draw and then the painting has to be refreshed because people can’t seem to stop rolling Bob on the die. However, if you play with people who can literally chill when things don’t go their way, this is a gem. Purple Phoenix Games gives Bob Ross: Art of Chill a 21 / 24. The only thing missing here is a way to, “beat the devil out of it,” and it would make my heart sing.
Bob Ross: Art of Chill is a set collection, hand management, card drafting game that has its players attempting to complete masterful paintings before the master does in order to collect bonus “chill points” to win the game. Whomever manages to reach ultimate chill status will be victorious and can return to feeding Peapod, their rascally pocket squirrel.
To setup, place the easel and one of the shuffled painting panels upon it. Place the other panels (paintings) nearby. Place the main scoreboard nearby as well and place the shuffled Chill Cards on its space upon the board. The Technique Cards deck and the Art Supplies Card decks will be shuffled separately and placed below the board with four cards from each deck revealed as an offer. Place the Bob Mover (Bobeeple) on the easel in the first location printed on the panel. Each player will receive a palette, the scoring cube of their color to be placed on the scoreboard, the three Feature Markers, and three random Art Supplies Cards. The game may now begin!
On a turn players will be rolling the Bob die and carrying out its action. These actions are playing a paint card from hand onto their palette, drawing one Art Supplies Card from the deck to their hand, performing one free Action prior to the Action phase, or resolving the Bob die face. The Bob die face requires players to reveal a new Chill Card and resolve its immediate effects, or effects that will remain in play until a new Chill Card is revealed. Secondly, the Bobeeple will move to the next printed stopping point on the panel.
Once the die has been rolled and resolved, the active player will be able to take any three actions available in any order: Draw an Art Supplies Card (from the deck or from the offer), Sweep the Art Supplies Card (discard all face-up cards and reveal four new ones), Apply Paint to Your Palette (by placing it on your palette from your hand of cards), Wash Your Palette (by discarding cards from one of the palette areas to clear it), Earn a Technique Card (by discarding two like-cards from the hand of cards in order to score more VP for painting features in the future), or Paint a Feature (by discarding the required brush from the player’s hand of cards and the correct matching paints already applied to their palette).
Once complete, the next player will take their turn of rolling the die and completing three actions. Should players paint a feature on the panel before Bob moves to that spot on the panel the player(s) will gain extra bonus Chill points. Players may still paint features for points if Bob already has as well, they just will not receive the bonus Bob points. Turns will continue in this fashion until the moment one player has reached ultimate Chill and won the game.
Components. This game has a fair amount of components and I am happy to say they are all great! The cardboard components (palettes, score board) are good. The cards are all lovely linen-finished. The other player components are fine as well. The painting panels are excellent and feature actual Bob Ross masterpieces, and there are 15 double-sided panels in the box! The coolest component is certainly the easel though. It seems to be a somewhat real and functional easel (not that you would really want to paint on it) and it amps up the table appeal when setup and in play. I love the components and I am so glad that Big G Creative made a Bob Ross game with beautiful components. Anything less would be sacrilege.
It probably comes as no surprise that I love this game. I have always loved watching Bob Ross from when I was a child even up through my adulthood and I am relieved to be able to still watch him in action via Netflix. The game, though, is rather surprising. I certainly wasn’t expecting to like this as much as I do and was quite shocked to find out that there was actual substance in a Bob Ross game. Especially when it was stationed next to “games” like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, Throw Throw Burrito, and the like. I enjoy the nostalgia in seeing my favorite colors in my hands like Phthalo Blue, Cadmium Orange, and Sap Green.
I don’t know if I would really consider this a gateway game, though I believe it really depends on the gamers with whom you are playing. There will be many times when you are concentrating on collecting the colors needed to finish a feature before Bob only to frustratingly never see that color on offer nor in the cards you draw and then the painting has to be refreshed because people can’t seem to stop rolling Bob on the die. However, if you play with people who can literally chill when things don’t go their way, this is a gem. Purple Phoenix Games gives Bob Ross: Art of Chill a 21 / 24. The only thing missing here is a way to, “beat the devil out of it,” and it would make my heart sing.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mega Shark vs Kolossus (2015) in Movies
Aug 16, 2020
Amendment to the shark rules, having "mega" in the title... *chef's kiss*
When the hunt for the power source known as Red Mercury takes a team to an underground bunker they accidentally awaken the giant doomsday machine that's been idle since the Cold War. While the Kolossus runs rampage a new megalodon is terrorising the coast... what will happen when the two inexplicably meet?
I will say that of the Mega-Shark "franchise" the best is Mega Shark Vs. Mecha Shark. It is obviously much more sensible having two things that are designed to be in the same environment battling together, a robot fighting a shark is epic... but a stretch. This duo does mean that it feels very much like two films, but honestly, the ridiculousness of this makes up a bit for that.
It does at last start with a super realistic submarine that's manned by a lot of women in tight pleather that doesn't look like it would offer any kind of protection against water or action. This is why we come for these films... the accuracy.
The acting is exactly what you'd expect from a shark film, probably something you'd rather wasn't on your resume. You've got all the stereotypes with all the cringeable moments and the actors don't do a bad job with what they're given.
There's a little issue right at the beginning of the film. When the team meet up outside the bunker there's an obviously pointless exchange to explain what's going on, two of the actors have subtitles. I don't have an issue with subtitles when they're needed, but while both the actors have accents in the scene they're actually speaking perfectly understandable English. It might have been a glitch on the copy I watched, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if it wasn't then I don't know what they were thinking.
When it comes to the shark scale this film is good because it has the requisite bag CGI, stupid storyline and classic quotes... the famous last words "No sign of the mega shark" and my personal favourite "...or you can die hiding under your desk searching for your balls." Glorious. Despite the amazing lines and the fact it's got a shark in it, the sheer impossibility of the pairing and the fact it feels like two films forced together makes it fall short of high marks.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/mega-shark-vs-kolossus-movie-review.html
When the hunt for the power source known as Red Mercury takes a team to an underground bunker they accidentally awaken the giant doomsday machine that's been idle since the Cold War. While the Kolossus runs rampage a new megalodon is terrorising the coast... what will happen when the two inexplicably meet?
I will say that of the Mega-Shark "franchise" the best is Mega Shark Vs. Mecha Shark. It is obviously much more sensible having two things that are designed to be in the same environment battling together, a robot fighting a shark is epic... but a stretch. This duo does mean that it feels very much like two films, but honestly, the ridiculousness of this makes up a bit for that.
It does at last start with a super realistic submarine that's manned by a lot of women in tight pleather that doesn't look like it would offer any kind of protection against water or action. This is why we come for these films... the accuracy.
The acting is exactly what you'd expect from a shark film, probably something you'd rather wasn't on your resume. You've got all the stereotypes with all the cringeable moments and the actors don't do a bad job with what they're given.
There's a little issue right at the beginning of the film. When the team meet up outside the bunker there's an obviously pointless exchange to explain what's going on, two of the actors have subtitles. I don't have an issue with subtitles when they're needed, but while both the actors have accents in the scene they're actually speaking perfectly understandable English. It might have been a glitch on the copy I watched, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if it wasn't then I don't know what they were thinking.
When it comes to the shark scale this film is good because it has the requisite bag CGI, stupid storyline and classic quotes... the famous last words "No sign of the mega shark" and my personal favourite "...or you can die hiding under your desk searching for your balls." Glorious. Despite the amazing lines and the fact it's got a shark in it, the sheer impossibility of the pairing and the fact it feels like two films forced together makes it fall short of high marks.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/mega-shark-vs-kolossus-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Place Beyond The Pines (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I really wanted to sit at my computer tonight and write about how much I disliked this movie. I was practically begging people to go with me, but no one wanted to. So I ended up going on my own. The only thing I really knew about this film going into it was that it was from Derek Cianfrance, the writer/director of “Blue Valentine”. I didn’t care much for BV, and so my hopes were not high for “The Place Beyond the Pines”, but actually, Pines surprised me.
Pines is the story of two men on opposite sides of the law, just trying to do the right thing and how what they do impacts each other’s lives, and the lives of their sons. Of course the means by which they got to the “right thing” was not always the “right way”, but ultimately they were trying to good.
Ryan Gosling plays “Heart Throb” Luke Glanton, a stunt motorcycle rider with a traveling circus. We open on him doing his thing in Schenectady, New York, and after his performance he sees Romina (“Roe”, portrayed by Eva Mendes). You can tell these two have history, as though they met the last time his little side show burned through town. Cutting through the awkwardness, Luke finds out that Roe had a kid. His kid, Jason. Though, he didn’t find out from her. Determined to make things right, despite Roe having moved on being with another man, Luke sticks around Schenectady to try and be part of his son’s life and to win Roe from her man. Only things don’t begin moving fast enough for him, and so turns to robbing banks in this small town as a way to provide for his lover and their newborn child. Only things go south fairly quickly and this puts him on a collision course with an ambitious rookie cop.
Bradley Cooper plays Avery Cross; a rookie cop on the force all of six months. After a harrowing deed that puts takes him off duty for several months and causes him so serious psychological issues which make it hard for him to even look at his son, Avery Jr. After his recovery, Avery returns to the force only to be thrust into a den of corrupt cops, gangs and a genuine fear for his life. He is not sure how to react at first, but eventually knows that he must do the right thing… even if it means ratting out his brothers in arms. This doesn’t prove to be an easy course for him, but he is determined to do the right thing, despite it tearing his family apart.
Act one of this film focuses on Gosling and Mendes’ characters and their tumultuous relationship. When they first brought Mendes on screen, I was really questioning the casting choice. By the end of the act, those questions were still there. It just didn’t seem like Gosling and Mendes had the chemistry that the makers of the film were desperately trying to portray. But we do see a lot into the character of Luke and how much he really just wants to be there for his son. Gosling did an excellent job with the role, but I feel like there was thing that was distracting from his performance: his hair. For some reason they decided bleach blond was the way to go to this character, but mostly what I was thinking when he was on screen was that it just looked out of place and I really had to concentrate to get past it.
Act two focuses on Bradley Cooper and the turmoil he goes through. I can’t say too much without giving away some major plot points of the film, but Bradley Cooper definitely did an excellent job playing the young rookie cop. He has an excellent supporting cast for his act with Harris Yulin playing his father, Rose Byrne as his wife and Bruce Greenwood as the District Attorney. He eventually manages to get from underneath all the lies, coercion and corruption to make a bid for an Assistant District Attorney position.
Fast forward to 15 years later, and this is where our act three takes place. Only now we are focusing on the lives of young Jason and Avery Jr. The deeds of their fathers in yester year, portrayed in our first two acts, affect our young subjects as they become friends without realizing the history between their families. I felt that Dane DeHaan who portrayed a 17-year old Jason knocked it out of the park with his performance. But there is something left to be said for Emory Cohen who is on screen as Avery Jr.
Want to know the rest? Watch the movie. Acts one and two, though long winded at points, blew me out of the water. Cianfrance did an excellent job of captivating the audience and making you care for the two focus points, despite them being on completely different sides of the law (as mentioned earlier). Act three, however, fell kind of flat to me. It very well could be a result of a poor casting choice in Emory Cohen, but I also felt like they could have shaped the end of this tail into so much more.
Overall, I actually enjoyed the movie, despite a lackluster ambition to go see it. Would I have gone to see it on my own if I had to pay for it? Nah! But it is a good date movie and might possibly start some interesting conversations between you and your partner.
Pines is the story of two men on opposite sides of the law, just trying to do the right thing and how what they do impacts each other’s lives, and the lives of their sons. Of course the means by which they got to the “right thing” was not always the “right way”, but ultimately they were trying to good.
Ryan Gosling plays “Heart Throb” Luke Glanton, a stunt motorcycle rider with a traveling circus. We open on him doing his thing in Schenectady, New York, and after his performance he sees Romina (“Roe”, portrayed by Eva Mendes). You can tell these two have history, as though they met the last time his little side show burned through town. Cutting through the awkwardness, Luke finds out that Roe had a kid. His kid, Jason. Though, he didn’t find out from her. Determined to make things right, despite Roe having moved on being with another man, Luke sticks around Schenectady to try and be part of his son’s life and to win Roe from her man. Only things don’t begin moving fast enough for him, and so turns to robbing banks in this small town as a way to provide for his lover and their newborn child. Only things go south fairly quickly and this puts him on a collision course with an ambitious rookie cop.
Bradley Cooper plays Avery Cross; a rookie cop on the force all of six months. After a harrowing deed that puts takes him off duty for several months and causes him so serious psychological issues which make it hard for him to even look at his son, Avery Jr. After his recovery, Avery returns to the force only to be thrust into a den of corrupt cops, gangs and a genuine fear for his life. He is not sure how to react at first, but eventually knows that he must do the right thing… even if it means ratting out his brothers in arms. This doesn’t prove to be an easy course for him, but he is determined to do the right thing, despite it tearing his family apart.
Act one of this film focuses on Gosling and Mendes’ characters and their tumultuous relationship. When they first brought Mendes on screen, I was really questioning the casting choice. By the end of the act, those questions were still there. It just didn’t seem like Gosling and Mendes had the chemistry that the makers of the film were desperately trying to portray. But we do see a lot into the character of Luke and how much he really just wants to be there for his son. Gosling did an excellent job with the role, but I feel like there was thing that was distracting from his performance: his hair. For some reason they decided bleach blond was the way to go to this character, but mostly what I was thinking when he was on screen was that it just looked out of place and I really had to concentrate to get past it.
Act two focuses on Bradley Cooper and the turmoil he goes through. I can’t say too much without giving away some major plot points of the film, but Bradley Cooper definitely did an excellent job playing the young rookie cop. He has an excellent supporting cast for his act with Harris Yulin playing his father, Rose Byrne as his wife and Bruce Greenwood as the District Attorney. He eventually manages to get from underneath all the lies, coercion and corruption to make a bid for an Assistant District Attorney position.
Fast forward to 15 years later, and this is where our act three takes place. Only now we are focusing on the lives of young Jason and Avery Jr. The deeds of their fathers in yester year, portrayed in our first two acts, affect our young subjects as they become friends without realizing the history between their families. I felt that Dane DeHaan who portrayed a 17-year old Jason knocked it out of the park with his performance. But there is something left to be said for Emory Cohen who is on screen as Avery Jr.
Want to know the rest? Watch the movie. Acts one and two, though long winded at points, blew me out of the water. Cianfrance did an excellent job of captivating the audience and making you care for the two focus points, despite them being on completely different sides of the law (as mentioned earlier). Act three, however, fell kind of flat to me. It very well could be a result of a poor casting choice in Emory Cohen, but I also felt like they could have shaped the end of this tail into so much more.
Overall, I actually enjoyed the movie, despite a lackluster ambition to go see it. Would I have gone to see it on my own if I had to pay for it? Nah! But it is a good date movie and might possibly start some interesting conversations between you and your partner.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Flightless Falcon in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – Flightless Falcon Still Glides Pretty Well
Flightless Falcon is a light DAW fantasy by Mickey Zucker Reichert that first came out in paperback in July of 2001. Set in your typical fantasy land – lightly coated in magic but sans any fantastical creatures such as dragons, elves, dwarves, and the like – it follows the sad, luckless exploits of an ex-miner named Tamison made useless after a cave in kills his father and brother and leaves him trapped deep in the mine for a few days.
Afterwards, with a debilitating fear of both the dark and being underground, he’s unable to continue as a miner, yet too unskilled to get any other job. As such, he and his family live in dirt poverty for a decade or so until he finally decides to try stealing what they need instead of earning the money to buy it. Unfortunately he’s just as horrible at this as anything else he tries and ends up in jail for two years.
When he finally gets out, his family’s disappeared, so he adopts a stray dog and lives on the streets for a while. Then one day a guard finds him and tells him, “Hey, I know where your family is, and it’s bad, man, we should go save ’em.” So Tamison saves a fortune teller from some different guards, just for good measure, and the three of them go off to get his family back.
The plot evolves from there – I won’t go into much greater detail because I don’t want to give anything away. And while it’s an entertaining read, it does have its share of snags, though not often or strong enough to derail the overall experience. Still, might was well talk about ’em.
The majority of these moments occur due to the protagonist himself; Tamison’s constant suffering and depression and worthlessness gets a bit irritating after a while (and not a very long while). But you do end up genuinely sympathizing with him, at least for the most part – his self-pitying and constant sobbing are offset, personality-wise, by his intense love and devotion to his family’s welfare (though apparently it still isn’t strong enough for him to suck up his phobia and go back to working in the mines). The end result is a character that, while whiny enough that you want to reach into the pages and smack him, is still believable. The fact that a lot of his misfortune is brought on by bad luck and the overwhelming apathy of the world around him, instead of just his own sad uselessness, also helps save what might have been an otherwise excruciatingly sad-sack protagonist.
But ignore what Miss Reichert and the back cover of the book say – the real star of this story isn’t Tamison, the guard (Dallan), or the fortune teller (Rifkah). It’s the weasely bastard of a con man that Tamison can’t stop running into, the aptly-named Con. This guy’s selfish lack of a moral compass and unwillingness to sugarcoat anything for anyone is a breath of fresh air amidst the hopeful optimism and general boyscout do-goodery of the rest of the starring party, and his quick wit and blunt, sarcastic dialogue are at once impressive and entertaining to read in the circumstances. His back story’s also far more interesting than anything Tamison, Dallan, and Rifkah can come up with.
The story itself also grows past a simple “save some good guys from some bad guys” fetch quest to envelope a degree of political intrigue, subterfuge, loyalty dilemmas, and good ol’ fashion backstabbery. I won’t say anything more past the obvious (there’s a twist, you know there’s gonna be a twist, there’s always a twist) other than to say that the generic good-guy-bad-guy feeling the book’s own synopsis offers slips slowly into a more realistic, more satisfying realm of uncertain grayness that accompanies all conflicts between the world’s two rival governments, the one Tamison belongs to and the one he’s told is harboring his missing family.
Basically, each time you think this book is going to march the plot or one of the characters into Generic Land (and you will occasionally think this multiple times), the direction skews off at the last moment to surprise you. The result is that you end up reading the book in two minds: one for soaking up the story and being entertained, and one with a critical eye turned always on the author’s style, to see where it threatens to stray into unimpressiveness and how it keeps saving itself.
But don’t focus overly much on my criticisms – that’s just how I’ve been trained to talk about good writing, to search for the roughest spots and pick at them in order to see how the whole thing might be polished even more. The reason this book is so easy to criticize is because its weak spots are few and manageable and therefor easy to cover and be done with in the length of a blog post. The overall impression I came away with is still one of a fun, thoughtful, imaginative tale, at times suspenseful, at times moving, and always deeply visual. I didn’t mention the detailed visual descriptions did I? Oh well, I just did. Now you know they’re there.
It’s not going to turn into the next blockbuster fantasy franchise, but if you find it in your used book store, there are less-enjoyable ways to spend your reading time. I recommend Flightless Falcon to anyone who enjoys well-written, character-driven fantasy and doesn’t need it to last through a dozen sequels.
Afterwards, with a debilitating fear of both the dark and being underground, he’s unable to continue as a miner, yet too unskilled to get any other job. As such, he and his family live in dirt poverty for a decade or so until he finally decides to try stealing what they need instead of earning the money to buy it. Unfortunately he’s just as horrible at this as anything else he tries and ends up in jail for two years.
When he finally gets out, his family’s disappeared, so he adopts a stray dog and lives on the streets for a while. Then one day a guard finds him and tells him, “Hey, I know where your family is, and it’s bad, man, we should go save ’em.” So Tamison saves a fortune teller from some different guards, just for good measure, and the three of them go off to get his family back.
The plot evolves from there – I won’t go into much greater detail because I don’t want to give anything away. And while it’s an entertaining read, it does have its share of snags, though not often or strong enough to derail the overall experience. Still, might was well talk about ’em.
The majority of these moments occur due to the protagonist himself; Tamison’s constant suffering and depression and worthlessness gets a bit irritating after a while (and not a very long while). But you do end up genuinely sympathizing with him, at least for the most part – his self-pitying and constant sobbing are offset, personality-wise, by his intense love and devotion to his family’s welfare (though apparently it still isn’t strong enough for him to suck up his phobia and go back to working in the mines). The end result is a character that, while whiny enough that you want to reach into the pages and smack him, is still believable. The fact that a lot of his misfortune is brought on by bad luck and the overwhelming apathy of the world around him, instead of just his own sad uselessness, also helps save what might have been an otherwise excruciatingly sad-sack protagonist.
But ignore what Miss Reichert and the back cover of the book say – the real star of this story isn’t Tamison, the guard (Dallan), or the fortune teller (Rifkah). It’s the weasely bastard of a con man that Tamison can’t stop running into, the aptly-named Con. This guy’s selfish lack of a moral compass and unwillingness to sugarcoat anything for anyone is a breath of fresh air amidst the hopeful optimism and general boyscout do-goodery of the rest of the starring party, and his quick wit and blunt, sarcastic dialogue are at once impressive and entertaining to read in the circumstances. His back story’s also far more interesting than anything Tamison, Dallan, and Rifkah can come up with.
The story itself also grows past a simple “save some good guys from some bad guys” fetch quest to envelope a degree of political intrigue, subterfuge, loyalty dilemmas, and good ol’ fashion backstabbery. I won’t say anything more past the obvious (there’s a twist, you know there’s gonna be a twist, there’s always a twist) other than to say that the generic good-guy-bad-guy feeling the book’s own synopsis offers slips slowly into a more realistic, more satisfying realm of uncertain grayness that accompanies all conflicts between the world’s two rival governments, the one Tamison belongs to and the one he’s told is harboring his missing family.
Basically, each time you think this book is going to march the plot or one of the characters into Generic Land (and you will occasionally think this multiple times), the direction skews off at the last moment to surprise you. The result is that you end up reading the book in two minds: one for soaking up the story and being entertained, and one with a critical eye turned always on the author’s style, to see where it threatens to stray into unimpressiveness and how it keeps saving itself.
But don’t focus overly much on my criticisms – that’s just how I’ve been trained to talk about good writing, to search for the roughest spots and pick at them in order to see how the whole thing might be polished even more. The reason this book is so easy to criticize is because its weak spots are few and manageable and therefor easy to cover and be done with in the length of a blog post. The overall impression I came away with is still one of a fun, thoughtful, imaginative tale, at times suspenseful, at times moving, and always deeply visual. I didn’t mention the detailed visual descriptions did I? Oh well, I just did. Now you know they’re there.
It’s not going to turn into the next blockbuster fantasy franchise, but if you find it in your used book store, there are less-enjoyable ways to spend your reading time. I recommend Flightless Falcon to anyone who enjoys well-written, character-driven fantasy and doesn’t need it to last through a dozen sequels.