Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Apr 15, 2018
Stellar
A group of four armed with special proton packs come together to protect Manhattan from crazy supernatural forces that have taken hold of the city.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
In the opening scene, Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) is doing an ESP exercise with a couple. He's having them use their brain power to identify something from a card they can't see. He's clearly sweet on the girlfriend because he keeps giving her soft-lob answers while taking the boyfriend through hell. The scene is one of the best openers I've seen in a movie and is a clever, hilarious way to kick things off. It doesn't take long for you to fall in love with Murray's character.
Characters: 10
Without Venkman, the film doesn't exist period. He carries a lax, dry attitude while everyone else around him is freaking out and for good reason. He's not even close to being a scientist like his counterparts, but that's a strong reason for what makes the film so great. All four of the characters are unique and bring something different to the table. The supporting roles are also awesome, each providing their own quirky, unique flare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Considering the film was made in 1984 (and special effects have greatly increased since then), I was pretty happy with the visuals throughout Ghostbusters. The ghosts are creative and original providing enough variety without being overly repetitive. This film put Slimer on the map, a disgusting green blob of a ghost that tries to devour everything in his path. Watching food pass from his mouth and through his body before exiting out the other end was a hilarious touch.
Oh, and can't forget about Stay Puft. Fun times watching that scene unfold.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Consistent blending of comedy and the paranormal helps maintain a healthy pace. The dialogue is so crisp and on point, it's hard to get bored as there is always something happening or something hilarious being said. Director Ivan Reitman even managed to take advantage of moments that would have otherwise been bland. The best example that comes to mind is the scene where they are riding up an elevator. Instead of just sitting around aimlessly, the group takes turns firing up their proton packs for the first time. One memorable scene among many.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Ghostbusters is an unforgettable ride from start to finish. It's one of those films you can watch over and over and it never gets old. A definite classic.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
In the opening scene, Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) is doing an ESP exercise with a couple. He's having them use their brain power to identify something from a card they can't see. He's clearly sweet on the girlfriend because he keeps giving her soft-lob answers while taking the boyfriend through hell. The scene is one of the best openers I've seen in a movie and is a clever, hilarious way to kick things off. It doesn't take long for you to fall in love with Murray's character.
Characters: 10
Without Venkman, the film doesn't exist period. He carries a lax, dry attitude while everyone else around him is freaking out and for good reason. He's not even close to being a scientist like his counterparts, but that's a strong reason for what makes the film so great. All four of the characters are unique and bring something different to the table. The supporting roles are also awesome, each providing their own quirky, unique flare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Considering the film was made in 1984 (and special effects have greatly increased since then), I was pretty happy with the visuals throughout Ghostbusters. The ghosts are creative and original providing enough variety without being overly repetitive. This film put Slimer on the map, a disgusting green blob of a ghost that tries to devour everything in his path. Watching food pass from his mouth and through his body before exiting out the other end was a hilarious touch.
Oh, and can't forget about Stay Puft. Fun times watching that scene unfold.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Consistent blending of comedy and the paranormal helps maintain a healthy pace. The dialogue is so crisp and on point, it's hard to get bored as there is always something happening or something hilarious being said. Director Ivan Reitman even managed to take advantage of moments that would have otherwise been bland. The best example that comes to mind is the scene where they are riding up an elevator. Instead of just sitting around aimlessly, the group takes turns firing up their proton packs for the first time. One memorable scene among many.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Ghostbusters is an unforgettable ride from start to finish. It's one of those films you can watch over and over and it never gets old. A definite classic.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Black Hawk Down (2001) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Modern Warfare like we had never seen it before...
Black Hawk Down is to me, the best war film that I have ever seen. Intense and relentless, it conveys the horror and tactics of modern warfare and more to point, like all great and classic war movies, demonstrates the dedication, skill and spirit that warfare can manifest when all hell breaks loose, or the proverbial hits the fan!
As a launch pad for some many careers in the naughties and beyond, including Tom Hardy, this is well cast, directed, edited, with an effective Hans Zimmer score and some of the best sound design I have ever heard, the engrossing horror of the situation was conveyed brilliantly. But there is something that I find somewhat disturbing about this film and it may well be a failure but it does demonstrate the effectiveness of the medium;
The Somalians or the “Indigenous Personal” as they were so aptly referred to in the film, came across as heartless, rage filled amoral murderers and while in many respects in respects to those portrayed in the film, it may well be true, I found myself and I doubt that I was alone, being filled with sense of glee every time one of these bastards was blown to pieces or filled with a hail of Uncle Sam’s bullets!
Also the scene where a child accidentally guns down his own father after a U.S. troop slips, is so very telling of the militia culture in that country at that time. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the Man? The Child? Or see it a poetic justice? Or just be relieved that our “Peace Keeping” U.S. soldier got away with his life? In many ways, I think that the ambivalence if that scene, sums up what was so brilliant as well as frightening about this film.
Whilst on one hand, it is hard to deny that we are supposed to feel for, respect and support our American heroes who will go to extreme lengths to “Leave No Man Behind”, we are asked to look at why the Somalians have taken up arms? But in the end it is a huge sociological issue and this film does not dwell too much on that. It touches on the fact that there are always two sides to any conflict, but like Zulu (1960) forty years before it, it chose its side and that was the normally powerful under dog and we saw them survive what many of us would have struggled to do.
This is truly a war film for war film fans and a MUST SEE for everyone.
As a launch pad for some many careers in the naughties and beyond, including Tom Hardy, this is well cast, directed, edited, with an effective Hans Zimmer score and some of the best sound design I have ever heard, the engrossing horror of the situation was conveyed brilliantly. But there is something that I find somewhat disturbing about this film and it may well be a failure but it does demonstrate the effectiveness of the medium;
The Somalians or the “Indigenous Personal” as they were so aptly referred to in the film, came across as heartless, rage filled amoral murderers and while in many respects in respects to those portrayed in the film, it may well be true, I found myself and I doubt that I was alone, being filled with sense of glee every time one of these bastards was blown to pieces or filled with a hail of Uncle Sam’s bullets!
Also the scene where a child accidentally guns down his own father after a U.S. troop slips, is so very telling of the militia culture in that country at that time. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the Man? The Child? Or see it a poetic justice? Or just be relieved that our “Peace Keeping” U.S. soldier got away with his life? In many ways, I think that the ambivalence if that scene, sums up what was so brilliant as well as frightening about this film.
Whilst on one hand, it is hard to deny that we are supposed to feel for, respect and support our American heroes who will go to extreme lengths to “Leave No Man Behind”, we are asked to look at why the Somalians have taken up arms? But in the end it is a huge sociological issue and this film does not dwell too much on that. It touches on the fact that there are always two sides to any conflict, but like Zulu (1960) forty years before it, it chose its side and that was the normally powerful under dog and we saw them survive what many of us would have struggled to do.
This is truly a war film for war film fans and a MUST SEE for everyone.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
Cracks Me Up
Growing up, I never really understood British humor. There is a bit of a bite to it, dry wit that I didn’t really get as a kid. The older I get, the more I appreciate and love it. Monty Python’s Life of Brian is a the perfect example of British humor at its finest. Set in 33 A.D., it follows the story of Brian Cohen who is mistaken for the Messiah and worshipped at every turn.
Acting: 10
One of the things I love about the Python movies is the fact that no character is restricted to one mere role. John Cleese, for example, is listed as a Wise Man, Centurion, and Official. Not only does he play three parts, but he is hilarious in every single role he owns. He has a way of trying to be serious but making you laugh anyway. Same thing with the likes of Terry Gilliam who plays Man Even Further Forward, Revolutionary, and Jailer to name just a handful of his roles. For all of the many hats the characters wear, they maintain a natural chemistry that makes their roles and timing perfect.
Beginning: 10
Hands-down, one of the best beginnings I’ve ever seen in a movie period. It’s a comedic spin on the birth of Jesus featuring the Three Wisemen showing up at the wrong manger. The scene sets up the entire film perfectly in all of its hilarity. By the time you’ve laughed through this, you’re ready to laugh more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 7
While Life of Brian is definitely a light-hearted affair, there is enough consistent conflict to keep the story moving. The story runs parallel to that of Jesus, right up to the crucifixion. Just like Jesus, Brian finds himself constantly in different bad situations, most of which he hasn’t prepared for. The film, of course, takes these situations, and makes each of them hilarious.
Genre: 8
A high-quality comedy that holds up even today. It makes you laugh from beginning to end and excels in originality. Definitely bordering along the lines of classic status.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 85
The misunderstanding of Brian as the savior is the key that makes the whole thing work. Monty Python’s Life of Brian works on a number of different levels and is sure to appeal to most, even Christians. If you have a sense of humor, that is.
Acting: 10
One of the things I love about the Python movies is the fact that no character is restricted to one mere role. John Cleese, for example, is listed as a Wise Man, Centurion, and Official. Not only does he play three parts, but he is hilarious in every single role he owns. He has a way of trying to be serious but making you laugh anyway. Same thing with the likes of Terry Gilliam who plays Man Even Further Forward, Revolutionary, and Jailer to name just a handful of his roles. For all of the many hats the characters wear, they maintain a natural chemistry that makes their roles and timing perfect.
Beginning: 10
Hands-down, one of the best beginnings I’ve ever seen in a movie period. It’s a comedic spin on the birth of Jesus featuring the Three Wisemen showing up at the wrong manger. The scene sets up the entire film perfectly in all of its hilarity. By the time you’ve laughed through this, you’re ready to laugh more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 7
While Life of Brian is definitely a light-hearted affair, there is enough consistent conflict to keep the story moving. The story runs parallel to that of Jesus, right up to the crucifixion. Just like Jesus, Brian finds himself constantly in different bad situations, most of which he hasn’t prepared for. The film, of course, takes these situations, and makes each of them hilarious.
Genre: 8
A high-quality comedy that holds up even today. It makes you laugh from beginning to end and excels in originality. Definitely bordering along the lines of classic status.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 85
The misunderstanding of Brian as the savior is the key that makes the whole thing work. Monty Python’s Life of Brian works on a number of different levels and is sure to appeal to most, even Christians. If you have a sense of humor, that is.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Mar 18, 2019
Not a Huge Fan
In a post-apocalyptic world where medusa-like creatures can kill you if you look at them, a woman is trying to get her two kids to one of the only safe zones left in the world.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
A strong choice of characters creates an interesting dynamic, starting with main character Malorie (Sandra Bullock). Malorie is so beaten down by the new life she has entered that she can’t even stand to name her children. The things that she has done and seen have hardened, but underneath all that is a person lost and ready to crack. It’s not hard to empathize with her throughout the story. Outside of Malorie, it’s interesting watching the characters inside the home (where most of the story takes place) interact. Some are scared, others rational, others resigned to their fate. You put them together in different scenarios and it was interesting watching the outcomes play out.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 8
Like a lot of films with a similar gimmick, the movie succeeds by giving you a sense of terror throughout. Much like the characters themselves, you’re in a constant state of worry that something terrible is lingering around the corner. You spend pretty much the entire movie wondering just what that something is. If it’s not creatures, it’s humans on the attack. While some of it is for the sake of shock value, there are some delightfully intense moments that keep things interesting.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 1
Bird Box falls short because there is a lot of much ado about nothing. I don’t want to spoil things for those of you that still haven’t seen it, but it is absolutely missing that “punch” that makes a movie worth rewatching. I left post-credits thinking, “Why was this done this way?” In the end, there was no real message to be had or no point of excitement that makes a typical classic stand the test of time.
Pace: 7
Plot: 5
Resolution: 6
Overall: 69
Bird Box has a great concept, but it doesn’t pack the same punch like films like A Quiet Place managed to do. Because I wasn’t as emotionally connected to the characters as I wanted to be and there was a little bit too much shock value with no real value, I can’t recommend the movie. I wanted it to be better and, with a few tweaks, it definitely could’ve been. Alas.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
A strong choice of characters creates an interesting dynamic, starting with main character Malorie (Sandra Bullock). Malorie is so beaten down by the new life she has entered that she can’t even stand to name her children. The things that she has done and seen have hardened, but underneath all that is a person lost and ready to crack. It’s not hard to empathize with her throughout the story. Outside of Malorie, it’s interesting watching the characters inside the home (where most of the story takes place) interact. Some are scared, others rational, others resigned to their fate. You put them together in different scenarios and it was interesting watching the outcomes play out.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 8
Like a lot of films with a similar gimmick, the movie succeeds by giving you a sense of terror throughout. Much like the characters themselves, you’re in a constant state of worry that something terrible is lingering around the corner. You spend pretty much the entire movie wondering just what that something is. If it’s not creatures, it’s humans on the attack. While some of it is for the sake of shock value, there are some delightfully intense moments that keep things interesting.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 1
Bird Box falls short because there is a lot of much ado about nothing. I don’t want to spoil things for those of you that still haven’t seen it, but it is absolutely missing that “punch” that makes a movie worth rewatching. I left post-credits thinking, “Why was this done this way?” In the end, there was no real message to be had or no point of excitement that makes a typical classic stand the test of time.
Pace: 7
Plot: 5
Resolution: 6
Overall: 69
Bird Box has a great concept, but it doesn’t pack the same punch like films like A Quiet Place managed to do. Because I wasn’t as emotionally connected to the characters as I wanted to be and there was a little bit too much shock value with no real value, I can’t recommend the movie. I wanted it to be better and, with a few tweaks, it definitely could’ve been. Alas.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot (2018) in Movies
Apr 1, 2019
Good, But Was Hoping For More
The plot is exactly what the title entails: A man who settles down in a small town after killing Hitler is called back into action years later one last time…to kill bigfoot. You may love it, you may hate it, but you won’t be able to knock its originality. Ten minutes in and it didn’t take me long to figure out I was watching something I had never seen before.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
From the beginning, you will be focused on this movie as it grabs your attention immediately. You find yourself wondering, What exactly is this man doing? I loved the intrigue to start, hooks you in right away. You also quickly learn that Calvin Barr (Sam Elliott) is nothing to be trifled with. You get to see his first taste of action and it’s fun to watch.
Characters: 10
Calvin isn’t that hard to figure out. He kicks ass and takes names and gives zero shits about it. He’s the kind of guy you can get behind. He’s hardened by the things he has seen, causing him to shell up into himself. Life experiences, man. They have a way of shaping people.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 8
Genre: 4
I can’t rate this any higher because I don’t think the movie ever really decided what it wanted to be. Sometimes action, sometimes drama there is a mix here that puts it in a weird place. I would be fine with it if it did one or the other exceptionally well, but I feel like it missed the boat in some spots, just shy of being a really solid movie.
Memorability: 9
Hate it or love it, this is a movie you won’t soon forget. I expected to get short-changed when it came to the bigfoot, but, no, you get to see the creature in all its glory. And what a creature! Definitely an interesting spin on the mythical beast. It’s imagery like this that really has a way of sticking out in my mind.
Pace: 9
Plot: 8
Resolution: 2
Overall: 79
I’m mad because I wanted this to be better than just a “Folding Clothes” movie. It’s good, but falls just short of great unfortunately. I think a little more tonal direction and a better ending could have put it in the range of a classic. Alas, The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot is just ok.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
From the beginning, you will be focused on this movie as it grabs your attention immediately. You find yourself wondering, What exactly is this man doing? I loved the intrigue to start, hooks you in right away. You also quickly learn that Calvin Barr (Sam Elliott) is nothing to be trifled with. You get to see his first taste of action and it’s fun to watch.
Characters: 10
Calvin isn’t that hard to figure out. He kicks ass and takes names and gives zero shits about it. He’s the kind of guy you can get behind. He’s hardened by the things he has seen, causing him to shell up into himself. Life experiences, man. They have a way of shaping people.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 8
Genre: 4
I can’t rate this any higher because I don’t think the movie ever really decided what it wanted to be. Sometimes action, sometimes drama there is a mix here that puts it in a weird place. I would be fine with it if it did one or the other exceptionally well, but I feel like it missed the boat in some spots, just shy of being a really solid movie.
Memorability: 9
Hate it or love it, this is a movie you won’t soon forget. I expected to get short-changed when it came to the bigfoot, but, no, you get to see the creature in all its glory. And what a creature! Definitely an interesting spin on the mythical beast. It’s imagery like this that really has a way of sticking out in my mind.
Pace: 9
Plot: 8
Resolution: 2
Overall: 79
I’m mad because I wanted this to be better than just a “Folding Clothes” movie. It’s good, but falls just short of great unfortunately. I think a little more tonal direction and a better ending could have put it in the range of a classic. Alas, The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot is just ok.
Ashley Valencia (5 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Apr 13, 2019
I Wanted to Like It
The animated Beauty and the Beast is one of my favorite movies to this day so i really wanted to like this film and tried to go in with no expectations.
I knew we were in trouble when Emma Watson started her first song of the film HEAVILY autotuned. The practice used to be that if an actor couldnt sing, they would lip sync and have someone else do the singing voice. This was also common practice for the animated films, one actor for singing and another for spoken lines. I wish they would've gone this route. The autotuning is just so heavy I found it cringey.
The film is gorgeous, a lot of pleasing visuals and effects but the Beast just looks, strange. Not really animalistic. Honestly more like if his face was carved out of a tree.
Despite the singing issue I do think the cast was well chosen. They all do a good job with what they have. Especially the actor playing Gaston. It seemed clear that they weren't 100% sure what to do with the character. At a few points it seemed like they were going to try to make him sympathetic but then they'd fall back on him just being awful. Still the actor did an amazing job and really sold it.
For the most part the plot sticks close to the original film though there are a few new elements, some background on Belle's mom, and new songs.
A few weeks before the film's release the director announced that there was definitely a gay character in the film. There are a few implications that there might be but that's it. I think honestly it would've come across better, he would've been given more credit, if he'd just let it be instead of making a big announcement and patting himself on the back. It would've seemed like a subtle nod to the lgbtq community instead of the false disappointing promise it turned out to be. He wanted the credit without actually putting in the work and it shows.
Overall I just didn't care for it. It's fine. Nothing spectacular. The animated film was definitely better. So I'd say stick with the classic however it is worth watching just to see the different interpretation of the story.
If you want a live action version I would recommend La Belle et la Bete, the 2014 French-Germanic version instead. It's a more interesting and visually stunning version of the story.
I knew we were in trouble when Emma Watson started her first song of the film HEAVILY autotuned. The practice used to be that if an actor couldnt sing, they would lip sync and have someone else do the singing voice. This was also common practice for the animated films, one actor for singing and another for spoken lines. I wish they would've gone this route. The autotuning is just so heavy I found it cringey.
The film is gorgeous, a lot of pleasing visuals and effects but the Beast just looks, strange. Not really animalistic. Honestly more like if his face was carved out of a tree.
Despite the singing issue I do think the cast was well chosen. They all do a good job with what they have. Especially the actor playing Gaston. It seemed clear that they weren't 100% sure what to do with the character. At a few points it seemed like they were going to try to make him sympathetic but then they'd fall back on him just being awful. Still the actor did an amazing job and really sold it.
For the most part the plot sticks close to the original film though there are a few new elements, some background on Belle's mom, and new songs.
A few weeks before the film's release the director announced that there was definitely a gay character in the film. There are a few implications that there might be but that's it. I think honestly it would've come across better, he would've been given more credit, if he'd just let it be instead of making a big announcement and patting himself on the back. It would've seemed like a subtle nod to the lgbtq community instead of the false disappointing promise it turned out to be. He wanted the credit without actually putting in the work and it shows.
Overall I just didn't care for it. It's fine. Nothing spectacular. The animated film was definitely better. So I'd say stick with the classic however it is worth watching just to see the different interpretation of the story.
If you want a live action version I would recommend La Belle et la Bete, the 2014 French-Germanic version instead. It's a more interesting and visually stunning version of the story.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Beguiled in Books
Jun 5, 2019
“A classic slice of Southern Gothic, shot through with psychological suspense, which is the basis for Sofia Coppola’s (winner of Best Director at Cannes) 2017 film of the same name starring Nicola Kidman, Colin Farrell and Kirsten Dunst”. Source: wiki/The_Beguiled_(2017_film).
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Future Home of the Living God in Books
Mar 25, 2018
Minority Representation (1 more)
Interesting premise
NO ANSWERS (1 more)
No resolution
Well that was a waste of time. This book spends its entire length asking one real question. Will the main character's baby survive? There are a number of smaller questions - Will the baby be born normal? Why is evolution turning backwards, or sideways? What happened to the main character's father? What happened to her friend from the hospital? What happened to her husband? Does she ever find freedom?
THE BOOK ANSWERS NONE OF THESE QUESTIONS.
I am really frustrated with this book. Why did I bother reading it if it refuses to resolve any of its plotlines?
We're going to get a little bit into writing theory here. It has been a classic recommendation to have the climax of your book 2/3 of the way through the book, and have the last third be denouement. Wrap-up. Show us how the climax affected the characters and the world. John Green does this well - all his books follow a standard plot line. Character A is introduced. A meets B. B changes A's life. B leaves A's life. (Those last two are usually incorporated in the climax of the book.) A has to learn how to live without B in a world changed by B's existence in it. It's a little formulaic, but it works for Green, and his books are great. Some books do not do this so well. Wheel of Time had 5-6 pages of denouement after the series climax, and nothing was really revealed about how the events changed the world for the better. Future Home of the Living God had TWO. TWO PAGES AFTER THE CLIMAX. AND THEY ANSWER NOTHING. The main character talks about missing winter.
I finished the book and almost threw it across the room. I probably would have, except for two things: I was at a friend's house, and it was a library book. That's all that saved it from that fate. I have stacks of books I want to read, and I feel like I just wasted a few hours on this piece of crap.
The writing was actually pretty good, and the main character is an Ojibwe Indian, so there's minority representation, but the book as a whole was just CRAP. Wrap up your plotlines. Answer the questions you ask. (At least the ones having to do with your plot - you can leave unanswered philosophical questions, that's fine.)
Hard pass on this book.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
THE BOOK ANSWERS NONE OF THESE QUESTIONS.
I am really frustrated with this book. Why did I bother reading it if it refuses to resolve any of its plotlines?
We're going to get a little bit into writing theory here. It has been a classic recommendation to have the climax of your book 2/3 of the way through the book, and have the last third be denouement. Wrap-up. Show us how the climax affected the characters and the world. John Green does this well - all his books follow a standard plot line. Character A is introduced. A meets B. B changes A's life. B leaves A's life. (Those last two are usually incorporated in the climax of the book.) A has to learn how to live without B in a world changed by B's existence in it. It's a little formulaic, but it works for Green, and his books are great. Some books do not do this so well. Wheel of Time had 5-6 pages of denouement after the series climax, and nothing was really revealed about how the events changed the world for the better. Future Home of the Living God had TWO. TWO PAGES AFTER THE CLIMAX. AND THEY ANSWER NOTHING. The main character talks about missing winter.
I finished the book and almost threw it across the room. I probably would have, except for two things: I was at a friend's house, and it was a library book. That's all that saved it from that fate. I have stacks of books I want to read, and I feel like I just wasted a few hours on this piece of crap.
The writing was actually pretty good, and the main character is an Ojibwe Indian, so there's minority representation, but the book as a whole was just CRAP. Wrap up your plotlines. Answer the questions you ask. (At least the ones having to do with your plot - you can leave unanswered philosophical questions, that's fine.)
Hard pass on this book.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Softer Than You Think
Utterly bonkers attempt at combining an apocalyptic thriller with gritty police procedural; the preposterousness of the plot combined with the fact that it always takes itself Very, Very Seriously results in what's essentially a hilarious unintentional comedy.
So, what's it about? Well, a pair of London coppers (cockney geezer and troubled waif) stumble upon a USB stick containing the government's advance planning for the end of the world, which is due in about five years. Quite what form this planning takes is a little unclear, as it neglects to mention just what form the apocalypse is going to take (which if nothing else allows the show a nice big revelation at the end of the season). Geezer and Waif must try to get the truth out there while fending off government agents who want them dead!
Except, it's not really about that: news of the impending catastrophe, whatever it is, lures various nutters out of the woodwork to start committing grisly murders, and - wouldn't you know it - whenever Geezer and Waif get a spare moment from being hunted by the government, they have to go around catching them By Any Means Necessary! (At one point Geezer contemplates waterboarding an innocent man who's not being cooperative enough.)
Except, it's not just about that, either, for Geezer and Waif have the most implausibly complicated back-stories known to man, involving an extramarital fling, a secure unit, an internal affairs investigation, the murder of Geezer's old partner, a secret deal, and Waif's homicidal grown-up son (who seems to be nearly as old as she is).
All of this stuff bangs together in the most grisly and unlikely fashion, with a general tone of overwrought existential misery (every one of the duo's cases either features a moment where they literally start beating each other up with collapsible truncheons, or one where they sit down together and wail 'What's the point of any of this? We're all going to be dead in five years anyway!').
The sheer ridiculousness of Hard Sun makes it quite watchable in a stick-it-on-in-the-background-while-you're-doing-something else kind of way; every time you find yourself saying 'This can't possibly get any sillier' the show comes right back and proves you wrong. The makers of the show are clearly hoping for a full five year run, counting down to the actual apocalypse itself, although clearly the format is in for a big retool somewhere along the line. Fingers crossed this finds the devoted global audience such a potential cult camp classic deserves.
So, what's it about? Well, a pair of London coppers (cockney geezer and troubled waif) stumble upon a USB stick containing the government's advance planning for the end of the world, which is due in about five years. Quite what form this planning takes is a little unclear, as it neglects to mention just what form the apocalypse is going to take (which if nothing else allows the show a nice big revelation at the end of the season). Geezer and Waif must try to get the truth out there while fending off government agents who want them dead!
Except, it's not really about that: news of the impending catastrophe, whatever it is, lures various nutters out of the woodwork to start committing grisly murders, and - wouldn't you know it - whenever Geezer and Waif get a spare moment from being hunted by the government, they have to go around catching them By Any Means Necessary! (At one point Geezer contemplates waterboarding an innocent man who's not being cooperative enough.)
Except, it's not just about that, either, for Geezer and Waif have the most implausibly complicated back-stories known to man, involving an extramarital fling, a secure unit, an internal affairs investigation, the murder of Geezer's old partner, a secret deal, and Waif's homicidal grown-up son (who seems to be nearly as old as she is).
All of this stuff bangs together in the most grisly and unlikely fashion, with a general tone of overwrought existential misery (every one of the duo's cases either features a moment where they literally start beating each other up with collapsible truncheons, or one where they sit down together and wail 'What's the point of any of this? We're all going to be dead in five years anyway!').
The sheer ridiculousness of Hard Sun makes it quite watchable in a stick-it-on-in-the-background-while-you're-doing-something else kind of way; every time you find yourself saying 'This can't possibly get any sillier' the show comes right back and proves you wrong. The makers of the show are clearly hoping for a full five year run, counting down to the actual apocalypse itself, although clearly the format is in for a big retool somewhere along the line. Fingers crossed this finds the devoted global audience such a potential cult camp classic deserves.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Taken (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2018
This film ranks in the top films I have ever seen.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw the trailer for this film a few months before its release. I can't remember looking forward to a film so much from just seeing the trailer. The Trailer set the film up perfectly. By the time I finally got to see it, my expectations were so high I knew I would be disappointed. Wow was I wrong.
The film starts off well, good introductions to the key characters. Bryan's daughter manipulating her parents into allowing her to go the Paris with her friend. She makes the promise to call at regular intervals. A promise that is broken almost immediately. Her father, played excellently by Liam Neeson, finally gets to speak to her on the phone. During this time the house she is staying in is broken into and she sees her friend being attacked. She lets her father know what is happening. He tells her to hide under the bed. Then, shockingly he tells her that she will be taken. His prediction is right and after she is taken one of the abductors finds the phone and hears her father telling them that he will find them and kill them. The abductor wishes him luck and hangs up the phone.
This is also the main part of the trailer. What grabbed me was the way Neeson spoke to the abductor. You would expect panic and anger, but no. He speaks to him in the calmest voice you will ever hear. This tone is frightening. You totally believe that this man will carry out his threat. And he does so with such style and believability. You find out he has Special Forces training and he puts them to use in dispatching everyone in his way. But unlike classic action films, the way he does it I found to be very believable. Everything he does is calculated and no energy is wasted. There are no crazy drawn out gunfights, no spectacular martial arts fight scenes. What you get is believable, he takes out people in his way quickly and efficiently.
Neeson is perfect in this role, not a typical action star, but he pulls the role off effortlessly. You believe in his character and when the film ended I found myself wanting more. For me this is what movies should be about.
The film is written by Luc Besson, a master in this kind of film.
This film ranks in the top films I have ever seen along with Leon: The Professional also by Luc Besson.
The film starts off well, good introductions to the key characters. Bryan's daughter manipulating her parents into allowing her to go the Paris with her friend. She makes the promise to call at regular intervals. A promise that is broken almost immediately. Her father, played excellently by Liam Neeson, finally gets to speak to her on the phone. During this time the house she is staying in is broken into and she sees her friend being attacked. She lets her father know what is happening. He tells her to hide under the bed. Then, shockingly he tells her that she will be taken. His prediction is right and after she is taken one of the abductors finds the phone and hears her father telling them that he will find them and kill them. The abductor wishes him luck and hangs up the phone.
This is also the main part of the trailer. What grabbed me was the way Neeson spoke to the abductor. You would expect panic and anger, but no. He speaks to him in the calmest voice you will ever hear. This tone is frightening. You totally believe that this man will carry out his threat. And he does so with such style and believability. You find out he has Special Forces training and he puts them to use in dispatching everyone in his way. But unlike classic action films, the way he does it I found to be very believable. Everything he does is calculated and no energy is wasted. There are no crazy drawn out gunfights, no spectacular martial arts fight scenes. What you get is believable, he takes out people in his way quickly and efficiently.
Neeson is perfect in this role, not a typical action star, but he pulls the role off effortlessly. You believe in his character and when the film ended I found myself wanting more. For me this is what movies should be about.
The film is written by Luc Besson, a master in this kind of film.
This film ranks in the top films I have ever seen along with Leon: The Professional also by Luc Besson.