Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The New Mutants (2020) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
Worst X-Men film yet?
The X-Men films have always been a bit of a mixed bag. The good; X2 and Days of Future Past. The bad verging on awful; Last Stand, Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix. And I'm afraid New Mutants is definitely the latter.
First of all, this film has been released to literally no fanfare or press whatsoever. I havent seen a single trailer or advert at all, it's not a good sign and almost feels like they're trying to brush this one under the carpet. And i can see why.
This film is beyond dull and I lost count of the amount of times I yawned and rolled my eyes watching this. From the shaky cam dodgy opening scene, visually this wasn't great. Some effects were good but some definitely looked shaky around the edges. And then there's the script which is very cheesy and poor, and the plot that isn't much better. Dani is an overall terrible character both in how she's written and acted. The romance in this is so badly done and cliched (and after knowing each other for like a day) that I almost wanted to vomit. There's also the issue with the accents - what on earth waa going on with Maisie Williams and Charlie Heaton?
The only saving grace to this film is Anya Taylor-Joy who is a wonderful actress and also luckily has the best character. Don't get me wrong she still suffers from the overly poor script and plot, but her character at least has some substance and whenever she's on screen the film is all the better for it. The rest of the characters you just couldn't care less about.
I havent quite decided yet if this is the worse film in the X-Men universe, but it's definitely in the running.
First of all, this film has been released to literally no fanfare or press whatsoever. I havent seen a single trailer or advert at all, it's not a good sign and almost feels like they're trying to brush this one under the carpet. And i can see why.
This film is beyond dull and I lost count of the amount of times I yawned and rolled my eyes watching this. From the shaky cam dodgy opening scene, visually this wasn't great. Some effects were good but some definitely looked shaky around the edges. And then there's the script which is very cheesy and poor, and the plot that isn't much better. Dani is an overall terrible character both in how she's written and acted. The romance in this is so badly done and cliched (and after knowing each other for like a day) that I almost wanted to vomit. There's also the issue with the accents - what on earth waa going on with Maisie Williams and Charlie Heaton?
The only saving grace to this film is Anya Taylor-Joy who is a wonderful actress and also luckily has the best character. Don't get me wrong she still suffers from the overly poor script and plot, but her character at least has some substance and whenever she's on screen the film is all the better for it. The rest of the characters you just couldn't care less about.
I havent quite decided yet if this is the worse film in the X-Men universe, but it's definitely in the running.
Merissa (11805 KP) rated The Fulbourn (Pitch & Sickle, #5) in Books
Apr 18, 2023
THE FULBOURN is the fifth book in the Pitch & Sickle series and oh, man. Hold on to your seatbelt as you're in for a bumpy ride!!
I said in my review of The Greensward that it was the best one. Well, let me rephrase that. It was the best one up to that point! THE FULBOURN takes Pitch and Silas' story to another level and I loved every single word.
Pitch and Silas are now close to realising just how much the other one means and it is so well-written! Their relationship may seem gruff to some but that is only until they know them. The bonds between the two are there to see and I'm loving it. The slow burn that started them off is now moving to steamy - whenever their lives give them a moment's peace. And sometimes, you just have to make the time!
Not only is their relationship changing, but the overall story arc is moving along swiftly too. You honestly don't get a chance to catch your breath. Filled with characters from previous books, Pitch and Silas are on the hunt for Charlie and Edward. It takes them to London and Cambridgeshire. The descriptions of the asylum are horrific - exactly as they are supposed to be during that time.
Absolutely gripping, I am thoroughly loving every book in this series and have no hesitation in recommending any of them. Just make sure you start at the beginning or you will miss the full effect.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Apr 17, 2023
I said in my review of The Greensward that it was the best one. Well, let me rephrase that. It was the best one up to that point! THE FULBOURN takes Pitch and Silas' story to another level and I loved every single word.
Pitch and Silas are now close to realising just how much the other one means and it is so well-written! Their relationship may seem gruff to some but that is only until they know them. The bonds between the two are there to see and I'm loving it. The slow burn that started them off is now moving to steamy - whenever their lives give them a moment's peace. And sometimes, you just have to make the time!
Not only is their relationship changing, but the overall story arc is moving along swiftly too. You honestly don't get a chance to catch your breath. Filled with characters from previous books, Pitch and Silas are on the hunt for Charlie and Edward. It takes them to London and Cambridgeshire. The descriptions of the asylum are horrific - exactly as they are supposed to be during that time.
Absolutely gripping, I am thoroughly loving every book in this series and have no hesitation in recommending any of them. Just make sure you start at the beginning or you will miss the full effect.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Apr 17, 2023
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia - Season 11 in TV
Jul 21, 2017
Sheer insanity (2 more)
Witty writing
Brilliant characters
Sometimes shocking, sometimes disgusting, always hilarious
When I was in college I had a mate who recommended this show constantly for the best part of a year. As much as he was my mate though, he was into some pretty weird stuff… like anime. So it’s fair to say I didn’t really trust his judgement on pop culture. Then one day I saw the show while browsing on Netflix and realised that each episode was only 20 minutes long, so I dived in not knowing what to expect and I was so pleasantly surprised with what I found. The first season of the show seems fairly tame in hindsight, but upon first viewing I was blown away by the fast pace of the show, the clever editing and timing of each episode and the outrageous yet witty lines that the characters spout. It is the second season though that the show really comes into its own, with the introduction of Danny DeVito and the transition of Sweet Dee who goes from the closest possible thing to a voice of reason in season 1, to a full blown narcissist by the end of Season 2. Really the characters are what make this show, how borderline insane they all are and their dynamic between one another is side splitting. Dennis starts off the show as the most normal person in the group, he is definitely the most relatable character for the first few seasons, but eventually him spending so much time with the rest of the group drives him insane, to the point where he becomes pretty sinister and constantly on the edge. Then there is Mac, Dennis’ best friend, he is the macho one in the group, obsessed with protecting the bar and having to throw out some ‘karate,’ moves when necessary. He is definitely one of the funniest parts of the show and his extreme Catholicism and questionable sexual preference also add to his evolution throughout the series. Charlie is the one that starts off the most insane at the start of the show, but I actually think that the rest of the gang slowly overtake him in terms of insanity as the show progresses, as he stays fairly consistently insane throughout. That’s not to say he isn’t still absolutely batshit though, he is a total degenerate, but there is a certain charm to him that can’t be denied and he sure is committed to his job of being a janitor. Sweet Dee starts off the show as the voice of reason, but she quickly descends to a similar level of degeneration as the show goes on and she is hilarious in every scene she is in. Lastly there is Frank, Dee and Dennis’ dad… possibly. He is incredible in this show, in fact I would go as far as to say that this could be the funniest that Danny DeVito has ever been onscreen. Frank is an insane man-child who shares a bed with Charlie, who there is also a chance of being his son. The side characters are also excellent and most of them have them have their own development as the show progresses. There is Rickety Cricket, the priest turned hobo that the gang went to school with, Gail the Snail, who is just vulgar in every way and the inbred psychotic McPoyles. Each episode follows the gang attempting some kind of scheme to benefit their own selfish gain, but they usually end up worse off than when the episode began. If you are looking for sheer insanity combined with witty, obscene writing, then you should definitely check this one out. There are currently 11 seasons of the show so far and it has recently been renewed for another two, so there is a marathon of belly laughing to get through and every minute of it is more ridiculous than the last.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Feb 10, 2019
Not as interesting as it wanted to be
On my airplane ride from Mpls to San Diego I was able to catch up with gritty, action-noir thriller BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE and was really surprised by how much I enjoyed it. So, I was excited to see that another gritty,, action-noir film, HOTEL ARTEMIS was showing on the flight back.
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Best of Adam Sharp in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Adam Sharp is nearing fifty. He's had a decent turn in life as an IT contractor and he's lived with his girlfriend, Claire, for many years. But Adam has always held a torch for his first love, Angelina. For a few brief months, the two bonded and shared a relationship solidified over Adam's piano playing and music. It's been over twenty years since the pair have had any contact, but one day--out of the blue--Adam gets an email from Angelina. She's married to her husband, Charlie, with three kids. Still, the emails quickly turn flirty and Adam starts to wonder what her intent is. Getting back in contact certainly brings up all his old feelings for Angelina and the past.
The book begins with present-day Adam remembering back on his relationship with Angelina, filling us in on what happened. Those snippets are interspersed with updates about Adam's current life, and he eventually catches us up to the present. Those beginning portions are fairly interesting as we learn how Adam and Angelina fell in love.
Unfortunately, though, the book lacked anything comedic (one of the things so enjoyable about the Rosie series Simsion is so famous for), beyond a few funny scenes featuring Angelina's parents and family. Instead, there is just so very much talking from Adam. So very much. It would have been okay, except I never really formed a connection to his character, and I found that I really only cared so much. I felt as if I had no horse in the race--with his relationships or life in general.
In many ways, I think I might have enjoyed the book if I was just a bit older and closer in age to Adam. I didn't connect as much with the music he mentioned so frequently in the novel (despite, of course, a love for music and an understanding of how it can connect and create memories throughout one's life), nor even the idea of pining for a lost love at one's midlife (despite, of course, having loved and lost). While I felt captivated at times during the novel, as much as I hate saying this, I often just felt bored. I read the book during vacation, and it was just such a poor choice, because I found myself almost dreading picking it up, but feeling duty-bound, both because I love to read on vacation and because I needed to review it. Oh sigh.
In addition, there are just some really weird plot twists in this one--once Angelina, Charlie, and Adam are all together--that frankly it made me feel a little icky. I'm open-minded and all, but it just didn't seem right and some of it rubbed me the wrong way. It also made it even harder to become attached to the characters.
By the end, perhaps I'm cynical, but some of the love scenes didn't even move me: I just didn't care. I was tired of everyone communicating by oblique song references. Anyway, I really wanted to love this because it seemed to be an ode to music and love. And, because I loved Simsion's Rosie novels. It's not fair, really, to compare an authors work in such a way, but I couldn't help it, and I didn't enjoy the plot and characters in this one anyway. I was ready for the book to be over. It definitely had some good points, but I was mostly so disappointed and annoyed and ready to be done.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 05/02/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
The book begins with present-day Adam remembering back on his relationship with Angelina, filling us in on what happened. Those snippets are interspersed with updates about Adam's current life, and he eventually catches us up to the present. Those beginning portions are fairly interesting as we learn how Adam and Angelina fell in love.
Unfortunately, though, the book lacked anything comedic (one of the things so enjoyable about the Rosie series Simsion is so famous for), beyond a few funny scenes featuring Angelina's parents and family. Instead, there is just so very much talking from Adam. So very much. It would have been okay, except I never really formed a connection to his character, and I found that I really only cared so much. I felt as if I had no horse in the race--with his relationships or life in general.
In many ways, I think I might have enjoyed the book if I was just a bit older and closer in age to Adam. I didn't connect as much with the music he mentioned so frequently in the novel (despite, of course, a love for music and an understanding of how it can connect and create memories throughout one's life), nor even the idea of pining for a lost love at one's midlife (despite, of course, having loved and lost). While I felt captivated at times during the novel, as much as I hate saying this, I often just felt bored. I read the book during vacation, and it was just such a poor choice, because I found myself almost dreading picking it up, but feeling duty-bound, both because I love to read on vacation and because I needed to review it. Oh sigh.
In addition, there are just some really weird plot twists in this one--once Angelina, Charlie, and Adam are all together--that frankly it made me feel a little icky. I'm open-minded and all, but it just didn't seem right and some of it rubbed me the wrong way. It also made it even harder to become attached to the characters.
By the end, perhaps I'm cynical, but some of the love scenes didn't even move me: I just didn't care. I was tired of everyone communicating by oblique song references. Anyway, I really wanted to love this because it seemed to be an ode to music and love. And, because I loved Simsion's Rosie novels. It's not fair, really, to compare an authors work in such a way, but I couldn't help it, and I didn't enjoy the plot and characters in this one anyway. I was ready for the book to be over. It definitely had some good points, but I was mostly so disappointed and annoyed and ready to be done.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 05/02/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
If sin were visible, what would the world be like? That is the premise of this brand new, original historical novel by Dan Vyletta. Bordering on steam-punk, <i>Smoke</i> is set in a Victorian England unlike any version ever documented before. Instead of an era of peace and posterity, it is full of wickedness and chaos. For an unexplained reason whenever a human acts with malicious intention or has a sinful thought their body emits a plume of smoke, staining their clothes and surrounding area with a coating of soot.
The story begins in an Oxford boarding school where two friends, Thomas and Charlie, are being taught that Smoke is bad and that they must learn to control it. However during the Christmas holidays, which both boys spend at a prodigious manor, they discover alternative views regarding Smoke, and are spooked by the Lady Naylor’s fascination. With their lives in sudden danger, Thomas and Charlie, along with Livia – Lady Naylor’s daughter – flee with the knowledge of a sinister, scientific intent that they do not understand.
From this point onwards the tale becomes darker and much more violent as the three friends try to work out Livia’s mother’s plans and endeavor to prevent her from carrying them out. All the while they are trying to deal with the effects of Smoke, which they have long given up trying to suppress.
Written from a large variety of viewpoints, <i>Smoke</i> is full of mystery and suspense, making it difficult to work out whom to trust. The reader has the same amount of knowledge as the protagonists and thus comes to the same conclusions at the same time, making reader and character feel like they are working together to identify the unknown.
It is unclear whether this is a young adult novel or intended for older readers. The key characters are only sixteen and are a trio of friends – two boys and a girl – which is something that since the dawn of <i>Harry Potter</i> has become fairly common place in YA literature. Also, Lady Naylor is reminiscent of the antagonist in Philip Pullman’s <i>His Dark Materials</i>. On the other hand, the language, whilst fitting for the time period, is far too formal to flow in a way that a book for teenagers would expect. There is also no attempt to sugarcoat or conceal the violence that takes place throughout a large section of the novel.
<i>Smoke</i> gets off to a shaky start leaving the reader feeling bewildered. The idea of Smoke and soot is not introduced in a clear manner, instead being thrown out there where everyone has to try and find the author’s wavelength and pick up the pieces as they go. Once the action begins – the escape from the manor – the story picks up the pace and becomes far more exciting before, sadly, diminishing into a confusing, violent jumble of a narrative that is tedious to try and follow. The conclusion, unfortunately, is also unclear, providing more questions that it actually solves.
I have very mixed feelings about this book. At times I enjoyed it, yet it also felt a chore to read. I found the concept rather confusing, unresolved and, on the whole, disappointing. <i>Smoke </i>is not a book I would easily recommend to anyone; even those who I know enjoy this particular genre. To be perfectly honest, I am glad I have finished it and do not need to read it anymore.
If sin were visible, what would the world be like? That is the premise of this brand new, original historical novel by Dan Vyletta. Bordering on steam-punk, <i>Smoke</i> is set in a Victorian England unlike any version ever documented before. Instead of an era of peace and posterity, it is full of wickedness and chaos. For an unexplained reason whenever a human acts with malicious intention or has a sinful thought their body emits a plume of smoke, staining their clothes and surrounding area with a coating of soot.
The story begins in an Oxford boarding school where two friends, Thomas and Charlie, are being taught that Smoke is bad and that they must learn to control it. However during the Christmas holidays, which both boys spend at a prodigious manor, they discover alternative views regarding Smoke, and are spooked by the Lady Naylor’s fascination. With their lives in sudden danger, Thomas and Charlie, along with Livia – Lady Naylor’s daughter – flee with the knowledge of a sinister, scientific intent that they do not understand.
From this point onwards the tale becomes darker and much more violent as the three friends try to work out Livia’s mother’s plans and endeavor to prevent her from carrying them out. All the while they are trying to deal with the effects of Smoke, which they have long given up trying to suppress.
Written from a large variety of viewpoints, <i>Smoke</i> is full of mystery and suspense, making it difficult to work out whom to trust. The reader has the same amount of knowledge as the protagonists and thus comes to the same conclusions at the same time, making reader and character feel like they are working together to identify the unknown.
It is unclear whether this is a young adult novel or intended for older readers. The key characters are only sixteen and are a trio of friends – two boys and a girl – which is something that since the dawn of <i>Harry Potter</i> has become fairly common place in YA literature. Also, Lady Naylor is reminiscent of the antagonist in Philip Pullman’s <i>His Dark Materials</i>. On the other hand, the language, whilst fitting for the time period, is far too formal to flow in a way that a book for teenagers would expect. There is also no attempt to sugarcoat or conceal the violence that takes place throughout a large section of the novel.
<i>Smoke</i> gets off to a shaky start leaving the reader feeling bewildered. The idea of Smoke and soot is not introduced in a clear manner, instead being thrown out there where everyone has to try and find the author’s wavelength and pick up the pieces as they go. Once the action begins – the escape from the manor – the story picks up the pace and becomes far more exciting before, sadly, diminishing into a confusing, violent jumble of a narrative that is tedious to try and follow. The conclusion, unfortunately, is also unclear, providing more questions that it actually solves.
I have very mixed feelings about this book. At times I enjoyed it, yet it also felt a chore to read. I found the concept rather confusing, unresolved and, on the whole, disappointing. <i>Smoke </i>is not a book I would easily recommend to anyone; even those who I know enjoy this particular genre. To be perfectly honest, I am glad I have finished it and do not need to read it anymore.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Bromley Boys (2018) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Story: The Bromley Boys starts in 1969 three years after England won the World Cup, David Roberts (O’Connor) had wanted to support the popular teams of either West Ham or Tottenham, but his father Donald (Davies) has banned football in the house, leading to his mother Gertrude (McCutcheon) sneaking him a scarf of his local team Bromley.
This season is going to be David’s biggest as he learns about the corruption from the chairman Charlie McQueen (Foreman) and the potential sale of the club’s best player. David also meets Ruby (Baker) the daughter of the chairman that is the only girl that talks to him as he experiences love for the first time.
Thoughts on The Bromley Boys
Characters – David Roberts is a teenage boy that got dreams of being a footballer after seeing England win the World Cup in 1966, he is forced to support his local team, a small team with a tiny fanbase, he becomes a loyal fan and during the 1969 season he must figure out prove the chairman is out to ruin the club as they constantly struggle on the pitch. Ruby McQueen is the daughter of the chairman that starts dating David, she wants a normal relationship but often has to play second fiddle to his love of football. Charlie McQueen is the greedy chairman of Bromley, the fans and manager believe he is trying to put them out of business, which reflects on how David tries to expose his truth. Gertrude and Donald are David’s parents that are trying to give him the best future even if they don’t like him enjoy football.
Performances – Brenock O’Connor is delightful in the leading role showing us just how obsessed teenager can become when it comes to sports. Savannah Baker is great as the love interest who is looking for a future. Jamie Foreman looks all the part of a corrupt chairman through the film, with Alan Davies and Martine McCutcheon showing they have the star power from the English side.
Story – The story here follows a teenage football fan of his local team that starts to see things putting his beloved club in trouble after overhearing a conversation, he tries to fix things during the season just to make sure his team will be their next season. As a football fan this is one of the easiest films to relate to, seeing the ups, well downs more than often in this film, we can see how footballs can see their lives taken over by the season, it is even worse in modern day too, we do also have the important message about trying to support your local team instead of one of the more established teams that friends support. This is based on a trouble story which apart from the romantic angle does feel like it could have been real, but also the tales told from the tiny crowds to get buzz around their club. This is a story that is going to be one that the English market will enjoy the most.
Comedy – You will get plenty of laughs in this film, a lot comes from the love of football and seeing just how much it can change a life.
Settings – The film is set in and around the small town of Bromley, we spend plenty of time at the club, which helps us understand what this meant to David.
Scene of the Movie – The last game of the season.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The teachers seem very harsh.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable British comedy, one that the English will enjoy most and one we can understand the passion behind supporting the team.
Overall: Truly fun and feel good film.
This season is going to be David’s biggest as he learns about the corruption from the chairman Charlie McQueen (Foreman) and the potential sale of the club’s best player. David also meets Ruby (Baker) the daughter of the chairman that is the only girl that talks to him as he experiences love for the first time.
Thoughts on The Bromley Boys
Characters – David Roberts is a teenage boy that got dreams of being a footballer after seeing England win the World Cup in 1966, he is forced to support his local team, a small team with a tiny fanbase, he becomes a loyal fan and during the 1969 season he must figure out prove the chairman is out to ruin the club as they constantly struggle on the pitch. Ruby McQueen is the daughter of the chairman that starts dating David, she wants a normal relationship but often has to play second fiddle to his love of football. Charlie McQueen is the greedy chairman of Bromley, the fans and manager believe he is trying to put them out of business, which reflects on how David tries to expose his truth. Gertrude and Donald are David’s parents that are trying to give him the best future even if they don’t like him enjoy football.
Performances – Brenock O’Connor is delightful in the leading role showing us just how obsessed teenager can become when it comes to sports. Savannah Baker is great as the love interest who is looking for a future. Jamie Foreman looks all the part of a corrupt chairman through the film, with Alan Davies and Martine McCutcheon showing they have the star power from the English side.
Story – The story here follows a teenage football fan of his local team that starts to see things putting his beloved club in trouble after overhearing a conversation, he tries to fix things during the season just to make sure his team will be their next season. As a football fan this is one of the easiest films to relate to, seeing the ups, well downs more than often in this film, we can see how footballs can see their lives taken over by the season, it is even worse in modern day too, we do also have the important message about trying to support your local team instead of one of the more established teams that friends support. This is based on a trouble story which apart from the romantic angle does feel like it could have been real, but also the tales told from the tiny crowds to get buzz around their club. This is a story that is going to be one that the English market will enjoy the most.
Comedy – You will get plenty of laughs in this film, a lot comes from the love of football and seeing just how much it can change a life.
Settings – The film is set in and around the small town of Bromley, we spend plenty of time at the club, which helps us understand what this meant to David.
Scene of the Movie – The last game of the season.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The teachers seem very harsh.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable British comedy, one that the English will enjoy most and one we can understand the passion behind supporting the team.
Overall: Truly fun and feel good film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Seven Psychopaths (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Unfamiliar with writer and director Martin McDonagh’s previous gangster film In Burges, I was not exactly sure what I was getting into when watching Seven Psychopaths. I had seen a few trailers and was looking forward to what looked like a quirky new movie that I hoped delivered at least a few solid one-liners but was not expecting much more. Well, I am delighted to say that McDonagh delivers a fantastic self-referential crime caper that is one part Pulp Fiction and one part a meta episode of NBC’s TV show Community.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Max Winslow and the House of Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is a family film, very much in the vein of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Maxine Winslow (Sydne Mikelle), or Max for short, is our Charlie Bucket, coming from a single-parent family and living with a mother who is struggling with debt. Tech-savvy Max is also a skilled hacker, demonstrating this by taking control of her neighbours video doorbell and making it ring so that he comes running outside. Kind of like a modern-day Knock-Down Ginger.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).