Search
Search results
The Comeback Kid by John Mulaney
7.0
Rate It
Album
John Mulaney is an American comedian, writer, and actor best known for his standup specials and work...
Ian Anderson recommended Alabama Blues/Passionate Blues by JB Lenoir in Music (curated)
Eat24 Food Delivery
Food & Drink and Travel
App
Your iPhone can now feed you. No, your phone hasn’t learned to cook but you won’t have to...
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) created a post
Nov 11, 2022
Ande Thomas (69 KP) rated The Time Traveler's Wife in Books
May 30, 2019
I've been thinking a lot about what I would write about <i>The Time Traveler's Wife,</i> partly because it seems one usually falls into one of two camps: Love it, hate it. It turns out, I belong to the latter. I won't bother with the sci-fi elements, the could he/couldn't he, the exploration of time travel as a plot device - I'm always willing to engage with a story as long as it follows it's own rules. My problems run deeper.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Left to Chance in Books
Jan 10, 2018
Great characters (3 more)
Strong portrayal of a small town
Some great funny moments
Lovely and powerful moments
Sweet, touching tale
After six years, Teddi Learner returns to her small hometown of Chance, Ohio to photograph the wedding of her best friend's husband, Miles. Miles is getting remarried after the death of his first wife, Celia. Celia and Miles and had one daughter together, Shayna, who is now twelve. Teddi and Shay had a somewhat superficial relationship after Celia's death--a yearly visit in Chicago, Skype calls, etc. But Shay's now nearly a teenager and she's personally asked Teddi to come to town--a place she's never set foot in since her beloved best friend passed away. When she arrives, she finds Chance has grown, and so has Shay, who is struggling with her father's remarriage and fitting in within her teen friend circle. Further, Teddi's memories of Celia are as strong as ever, and so are her feelings for Celia's brother, Beck, whom she was seeing when she fled town after (okay, pretty much during) Celia's funeral. Teddi has a new life now, photographing weddings all over the country for Hester Hotels. She left Chance behind and never looked back. But now that she's here, she can't help but notice all (and who) she left.
I enjoy picking up novels like this sometime because they let me indulge in my Lifetime / Hallmark movie side (I'm a sucker for those, especially at Christmas time). This book was an excellent diversion and while I certainly could predict some areas, it surprised me in others.
Nathan gives us some great characters, particularly Teddi and Shay. Teddi is complicated and a little annoying, at times, but she comes across as realistically human and flawed. Her love for Celia is incredibly strong and you can feel her loss and heartache come across the pages. The novel is a real testament to female friendship. At times you want to push or prod her a bit, but she's also stronger than she thinks. As for Shay, my heart often broke for the poor girl, struggling at the age of being between a girl and a teenager, with the added difficulty of having lost her mom.
Nathan also does a good job of portraying the eclectic cast of characters in small town Chance, with some good foils popping up for Teddi. Some of my particular favorite appearances included Teddi's cousin, Maggie, and childhood friend, Josie. Because it's a small place, Miles' wedding is the talk of the town, and we see how it brings up some bitterness and long held issues among some, including the immediate family.
Overall, I enjoyed this one. The hardest part was some melodrama in the plot and theme, which got to be a little too much at times. Some things seemed to be blown a bit out of proportion and there can be a lot of different plot threads going on at times. However, there are some really lovely and powerful moments and some incredibly funny ones--much of which stem from the strength of the characters. There's a bit of a picture perfect ending, but not the one I expected. This was a sweet, touching tale in many ways and exactly the read I needed at this point in time. 3.5+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review.
I enjoy picking up novels like this sometime because they let me indulge in my Lifetime / Hallmark movie side (I'm a sucker for those, especially at Christmas time). This book was an excellent diversion and while I certainly could predict some areas, it surprised me in others.
Nathan gives us some great characters, particularly Teddi and Shay. Teddi is complicated and a little annoying, at times, but she comes across as realistically human and flawed. Her love for Celia is incredibly strong and you can feel her loss and heartache come across the pages. The novel is a real testament to female friendship. At times you want to push or prod her a bit, but she's also stronger than she thinks. As for Shay, my heart often broke for the poor girl, struggling at the age of being between a girl and a teenager, with the added difficulty of having lost her mom.
Nathan also does a good job of portraying the eclectic cast of characters in small town Chance, with some good foils popping up for Teddi. Some of my particular favorite appearances included Teddi's cousin, Maggie, and childhood friend, Josie. Because it's a small place, Miles' wedding is the talk of the town, and we see how it brings up some bitterness and long held issues among some, including the immediate family.
Overall, I enjoyed this one. The hardest part was some melodrama in the plot and theme, which got to be a little too much at times. Some things seemed to be blown a bit out of proportion and there can be a lot of different plot threads going on at times. However, there are some really lovely and powerful moments and some incredibly funny ones--much of which stem from the strength of the characters. There's a bit of a picture perfect ending, but not the one I expected. This was a sweet, touching tale in many ways and exactly the read I needed at this point in time. 3.5+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Bonfire in Books
May 16, 2018
This was first posted on <I><a href="http://theghastlygrimoire.com"; target="new">The Ghastly Grimoire</a></I>.
After completing this book, I think it’s safe to say that my reading slump has finally come to an end. I devoured Krysten Ritter’s debut novel, Bonfire, with a hunger I haven’t felt in months. If you take into account that I’m from a small town of a whopping fifteen hundred people, it’s easier to realize how much I am able to relate to the main character of this book, Abigail Williams. That, and Ritter hits on some nostalgia too, because in a way, Bonfire reads like Erin Brokovich meets Sweet Home Alabama, with distinctly darker notes.
Character development plays a vital role in how a book turns out. If your cast is too flat, it makes the book a total bore. On the other hand, if you’ve got characters that are dynamic and, in the case of several individuals in Bonfire, two-faced, the book is far more likely to entertain. In this area, Ritter has excelled at creating that small-town feel with many of the types of people those living in small towns meet. Let’s face it, even with Abigail moving to Chicago, there’s always those people who get out. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they’re gone for good. (In my case, I chose to come back.)
Plotwise, Ritter keeps the ball rolling. I didn’t feel like the story was dragging at any point. In fact, it’s the way that the story continues to unfold that kept me up until three this morning finishing it. Bonfire plays host to a story within a story, taking the corrupt corporations one step beyond contamination and into a far deeper, far worse crime. Just when things appear over, an entirely new turn keeps the story going. I won’t lie: I nearly bawled last night while I finished reading it.
There is only one aspect of this book that truly miffed me, and it sorta deals with the romance aspect. As many of my readers know, I abhor romance plots. Especially those that seem forced, rather than natural. That said, I really don’t want to divulge any spoilers, but I will say this: for being such a strong, independent character, there are some actions that Abigail Williams takes in this book that simply aren’t natural. They feel incredibly forced and out of character, and I can’t help but think it’s there more as a cop-out for the final twist in the story than going about it in some other clever manner.
That said, after finishing Bonfire, I feel it is safe to say that this debut novel is worth reading. Initially, I nearly forgot I had it until I saw it was one of the options for this month’s Book of the Month Club. Considering I’m very particular, I almost chose it before realizing I already had it technically. So if you’re wanting to pick it up cheap, there you go. (I’m actually still debating grabbing it through Book of the Month Club myself, because hey! I loved it.)
I would like to thank Penguin’s First to Read program for providing me with a copy of this book for the purpose of unbiased review.
After completing this book, I think it’s safe to say that my reading slump has finally come to an end. I devoured Krysten Ritter’s debut novel, Bonfire, with a hunger I haven’t felt in months. If you take into account that I’m from a small town of a whopping fifteen hundred people, it’s easier to realize how much I am able to relate to the main character of this book, Abigail Williams. That, and Ritter hits on some nostalgia too, because in a way, Bonfire reads like Erin Brokovich meets Sweet Home Alabama, with distinctly darker notes.
Character development plays a vital role in how a book turns out. If your cast is too flat, it makes the book a total bore. On the other hand, if you’ve got characters that are dynamic and, in the case of several individuals in Bonfire, two-faced, the book is far more likely to entertain. In this area, Ritter has excelled at creating that small-town feel with many of the types of people those living in small towns meet. Let’s face it, even with Abigail moving to Chicago, there’s always those people who get out. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they’re gone for good. (In my case, I chose to come back.)
Plotwise, Ritter keeps the ball rolling. I didn’t feel like the story was dragging at any point. In fact, it’s the way that the story continues to unfold that kept me up until three this morning finishing it. Bonfire plays host to a story within a story, taking the corrupt corporations one step beyond contamination and into a far deeper, far worse crime. Just when things appear over, an entirely new turn keeps the story going. I won’t lie: I nearly bawled last night while I finished reading it.
There is only one aspect of this book that truly miffed me, and it sorta deals with the romance aspect. As many of my readers know, I abhor romance plots. Especially those that seem forced, rather than natural. That said, I really don’t want to divulge any spoilers, but I will say this: for being such a strong, independent character, there are some actions that Abigail Williams takes in this book that simply aren’t natural. They feel incredibly forced and out of character, and I can’t help but think it’s there more as a cop-out for the final twist in the story than going about it in some other clever manner.
That said, after finishing Bonfire, I feel it is safe to say that this debut novel is worth reading. Initially, I nearly forgot I had it until I saw it was one of the options for this month’s Book of the Month Club. Considering I’m very particular, I almost chose it before realizing I already had it technically. So if you’re wanting to pick it up cheap, there you go. (I’m actually still debating grabbing it through Book of the Month Club myself, because hey! I loved it.)
I would like to thank Penguin’s First to Read program for providing me with a copy of this book for the purpose of unbiased review.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Forever Fudge in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Forever Fudge by Nancy Coco is a sweet cozy mystery. Readers will salivate with the fudge recipes, be charmed on the Mackinac Island, and attempt to crack the murder mystery along with the main character Allie McMurphy.
Coco is a great pseudonym for the Fudge series. “I really enjoy writing these cozy mysteries with the humor and solving the puzzle. While writing my first series, I would put recipes on my blog. Then a friend of mine suggested I should write in this genre with a gluten free bakery. My last name was specifically chosen for this series. I love fudge, actually anything chocolate. The person in the apartment next to us said it always smells like chocolate in my house. Not only does it smell good but tastes good as well.”
Allie is an amateur sleuth. She and her dog Mal have an uncanny ability to find dead bodies. In the past, she has helped the police solve cases. As the owner of a delightful hotel and fudge shop on Mackinac Island, Allie’s excitement has grown after a television crew arrives on the island to film a television pilot for a mystery series. Throwing a wrench into the enthusiasm is the dead body found by Allie’s adorable Bichon-Poo puppy, Mal. Shot in the head, the body discovered has a letter with clues from chess moves. As the killings mount up, the murderer continues to taunt Allie, trying to get her to play his game.
The island plays a role in the story. “I have a huge family living in Michigan, which is where the island is located. If you ever saw the movie, “Somewhere in Time” starring Christopher Reeve, you can picture the setting. The island does not allow cars so people travel by foot, horse and carriage, or bicycle. It is a cool touristy place.”
There is also a love triangle. Allie is being wooed by two courters. She broke up with Trent Jessup because a long-distance relationship is not working, with him spending a lot of time in Chicago. The other beau is police chief Rex Manning who is being persistent in pursuing her, yet, willing to give her time and space.
“I thought it is interesting to compare ‘in love versus loving someone.’ I love my male friends but being ‘in love’ has excitement, a commitment, and intimacy. Allie is starting to build connections but some old timers see her as an outsider. One of those who accept her as part of the community is Rex who sees it as his responsibility to protect her and the community.”
Actual recipes are dispersed throughout the story. “I purposely did it this way to show what Allie is working on. I sprinkle it throughout to give the feel and flavor to what she is actually making. I try to relate it to the story when possible. I remember my first contract with Kensington Books required me to write ten recipes per book. Luckily, they downsized that amount. Since they had to be originals it was a relief.”
This story has an intriguing mystery, some romance, and humor. It is a fun who done it plot that has no shortage of suspects. Readers will be looking forward to the next installment, Fudge Bits, out next fall, a Halloween plot. It will highlight her cat instead of her dog that finds a Zombie body.
Coco is a great pseudonym for the Fudge series. “I really enjoy writing these cozy mysteries with the humor and solving the puzzle. While writing my first series, I would put recipes on my blog. Then a friend of mine suggested I should write in this genre with a gluten free bakery. My last name was specifically chosen for this series. I love fudge, actually anything chocolate. The person in the apartment next to us said it always smells like chocolate in my house. Not only does it smell good but tastes good as well.”
Allie is an amateur sleuth. She and her dog Mal have an uncanny ability to find dead bodies. In the past, she has helped the police solve cases. As the owner of a delightful hotel and fudge shop on Mackinac Island, Allie’s excitement has grown after a television crew arrives on the island to film a television pilot for a mystery series. Throwing a wrench into the enthusiasm is the dead body found by Allie’s adorable Bichon-Poo puppy, Mal. Shot in the head, the body discovered has a letter with clues from chess moves. As the killings mount up, the murderer continues to taunt Allie, trying to get her to play his game.
The island plays a role in the story. “I have a huge family living in Michigan, which is where the island is located. If you ever saw the movie, “Somewhere in Time” starring Christopher Reeve, you can picture the setting. The island does not allow cars so people travel by foot, horse and carriage, or bicycle. It is a cool touristy place.”
There is also a love triangle. Allie is being wooed by two courters. She broke up with Trent Jessup because a long-distance relationship is not working, with him spending a lot of time in Chicago. The other beau is police chief Rex Manning who is being persistent in pursuing her, yet, willing to give her time and space.
“I thought it is interesting to compare ‘in love versus loving someone.’ I love my male friends but being ‘in love’ has excitement, a commitment, and intimacy. Allie is starting to build connections but some old timers see her as an outsider. One of those who accept her as part of the community is Rex who sees it as his responsibility to protect her and the community.”
Actual recipes are dispersed throughout the story. “I purposely did it this way to show what Allie is working on. I sprinkle it throughout to give the feel and flavor to what she is actually making. I try to relate it to the story when possible. I remember my first contract with Kensington Books required me to write ten recipes per book. Luckily, they downsized that amount. Since they had to be originals it was a relief.”
This story has an intriguing mystery, some romance, and humor. It is a fun who done it plot that has no shortage of suspects. Readers will be looking forward to the next installment, Fudge Bits, out next fall, a Halloween plot. It will highlight her cat instead of her dog that finds a Zombie body.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A+ for effort
I think it’s probably fair to say that the Young Adult genre has become oversaturated due to the phenomenal success of The Hunger Games. Since coming to a slightly underwhelming conclusion last year, many new franchises have its crown firmly in their sights.
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/