Search
Search results
Marvel Pinball
Games
App
Marvel Pinball combines the greatest Super Heroes of all time with the definitive videogame pinball...
Ritz and Escoffier: The Hotelier, the Chef, and the Rise of the Leisure Class
Book
In a tale replete with scandal and opulence, Luke Barr, author of the New York Times bestselling...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) in Movies
Sep 5, 2021 (Updated Oct 2, 2021)
The latest entry into the MCU is a definitely a ride, both in terms of quality and in what unfolds on screen. The things I disliked about Shang-Chi are very clear cut - it's pacing is all over the place, there's an unholy amount of exposition dumps, and the humourous moments didn't always land. I have nothing against Awkwafina, but her character here is a constant quip-machine, and takes up a hefty amount of screen time, whilst simultaneously feeling a little pointless when all is said and done.
However, the things I did like about Shang-Chi are also extremely clear cut. For a starter, I'm just generally stoked that the character himself has his own movie. We've come a long way since X-Men blew the superhero genre wide open back in 2000.
It has a great cast, including lead Simu Liu, as well as the likes of Tony Leung and Michelle Yeoh. The inner comic book nerd in me was beyond excited to see minor villains such as Razor Fist and Death Dealer on screen, and then of course (no spoilers!) a third act villain that is a true deep cut from the comics. Tony Leung's Wenwu aka The Mandarin strikes an imposing presence as the main big bad, and the subsequent theme of power and family gives the movie a beating, if tragic, heart.
Pretty much all of the fight scenes are great, and any flaws that I found were completely obliterated by the batshit insane final third, that honestly verges on live action anime at times.
The general tone of this movie feels like something new for the MCU. From street level fighting, to crazy fantasy style set pieces, to the exploration of Asian culture, Shang-Chi is a fresh new entry for the MCU, as the studio steps a little further out of its comfort zone. Please try to see it on the big screen if you can!
However, the things I did like about Shang-Chi are also extremely clear cut. For a starter, I'm just generally stoked that the character himself has his own movie. We've come a long way since X-Men blew the superhero genre wide open back in 2000.
It has a great cast, including lead Simu Liu, as well as the likes of Tony Leung and Michelle Yeoh. The inner comic book nerd in me was beyond excited to see minor villains such as Razor Fist and Death Dealer on screen, and then of course (no spoilers!) a third act villain that is a true deep cut from the comics. Tony Leung's Wenwu aka The Mandarin strikes an imposing presence as the main big bad, and the subsequent theme of power and family gives the movie a beating, if tragic, heart.
Pretty much all of the fight scenes are great, and any flaws that I found were completely obliterated by the batshit insane final third, that honestly verges on live action anime at times.
The general tone of this movie feels like something new for the MCU. From street level fighting, to crazy fantasy style set pieces, to the exploration of Asian culture, Shang-Chi is a fresh new entry for the MCU, as the studio steps a little further out of its comfort zone. Please try to see it on the big screen if you can!
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Oct 6, 2021
Its adult humor is also incredibly poignant (2 more)
Blood and gore is Troma levels of insanity
King Shark and Polka Dot Man
Not as fun on repeat viewings (1 more)
Is a little too similar to Guardians of the Galaxy
I'm a Motherf@#$ing Superhero!
You could probably get away with calling James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad an R-rated version of Guardians of the Galaxy, but it isn’t entirely fair or correct. It’s a complicated comparison much like Gunn’s status with Marvel Studios that allowed him to make the film in the first place and whether or not The Suicide Squad is a sequel or a reboot to David Ayer’s 2016 film.
Gunn has always had a knack for getting gory or gross or raunchy if the opportunity presented itself. The Suicide Squad almost feels like a clean, strike that, blood-splattered slate for the filmmaker. Gunn had complete creative control while making The Suicide Squad and it shows; not only in its graphic content and excessive vulgarity, but also in the characters Gunn chose to be in the film. Nearly everyone has been replaced from the previous Suicide Squad film except for Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Colonel Rick Flagg (Joel Kinnaman), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), and Amanda Waller (Viola Davis). The new characters are mostly unknown or barely known villains, which makes the fact that nearly all of them are expendable all the more intriguing.
While Guardians of the Galaxy and The Suicide Squad are two different films, there are some undeniable similarities. The cast of The Suicide Squad is insanely stacked, but you have to know by now that three quarters of these characters die in horribly gruesome ways. Witnessing who lives and who dies is half the fun of the film, so that won’t be spoiled here. But The Suicide Squad has a team of five characters that are grouped together and featured more than anyone else. It’s a lot like how Guardians began with Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket, and Groot. These five characters also end up being the ones you love the most.
Gunn also has a thing for taking a group of assholes and giving them meaning. In the tenth season of South Park, Eric Cartman meets Bart Simpson face to face. Bart has always been a troublemaker and a prankster, but Cartman ground up Scott Tenorman’s parents, slapped that ground parent meat in some chili, and made Scott eat his own parents. The comparison between Guardians and The Suicide Squad is a lot like the difference between Bart Simpson and Eric Cartman. The Suicide Squad features straight up murderers, demented psychopaths, and whatever the hell Weasel is.
Not unlike his other comic book film work though, Gunn typically takes what would be unlikable characters on their own and finds a purpose for them once they’re with other outcasts that they can relate to. There is a ton of heart in The Suicide Squad. You fall in love with King Shark because he’s trying to read books upside down and use one of his fingers as mustache as a brilliant disguise, but you don’t feel for him until he reveals that he’s never had a friend. Sebastian, Ratcatcher II’s go-to rat, is adorable because he waves at, offers leaves to, and flocks toward Bloodsport even though he’s afraid of rats. There’s still this camaraderie in The Suicide Squad. It may be broken and gory, but it’s still camaraderie.
There are some unusual choices that Gunn made with The Suicide Squad though. They originally wanted Will Smith to come back as Deadshot, but supposedly cast Idris Elba to replace Smith in the role. Then they backtracked and made Elba Bloodsport. The odd thing is that both Bloodsport and Peacemaker are exactly the same as Deadshot. Peacemaker seems to be a bit crazier, but both characters have a thing for making anything a weapon in their hands and having precise aim. Bloodsport is even doing everything in the film for the sake of his daughter. It gives Warner Bros a chance to bring Smith back as Deadshot down the line, but having all three characters in the same film would be serious overkill.
Harley Quinn’s action sequences in The Suicide Squad are better and more satisfying than anything Margot Robbie has done with the role. Polka Dot Man is low-key the coolest character of the film despite seeing his mom in every person that he meets. Many will likely point to the blood, the gore, and all of the F-bombs shouted mostly among teammates as Gunn cleansing his Marvel/Disney palette so to speak. However, the major difference is Starro. Starro is a giant blue and purple starfish with an eyeball in the middle of his body. He is essentially a kaiju, but he shoots miniature versions of himself out of his armpits which latch onto people’s faces, kills them, and turns their corpses into zombie-like slaves that do his bidding; all while Starro gets bigger and bigger in the process. The abridged version of this starfish heavy explanation is that Starro is fucking terrifying. The entire world is basically on the verge of bowing down to a Godzilla sized starfish that has the ability to shoot armies of himself out of his Goddamn armpits! The MCU featuring a monster or creature of any kind that is that scary is slim to none.
The Suicide Squad is an uproarious extravaganza filled with grotesque nom-noms, full-on naked dick shots, and John Cena in tighty-whities and it’s is the most fun you’ll have with an R-rated comic book film in a theater (or at home with HBO Max) since Deadpool. It’s the first comic book film to come along in a good long while that’s charming because of how weird it is. As a final note, stay/watch after the credits. James Gunn and John Cena are doing an 8-episode Peacemaker TV series for HBO Max due sometime in 2022, so that may or may not be teased in some capacity.
Gunn has always had a knack for getting gory or gross or raunchy if the opportunity presented itself. The Suicide Squad almost feels like a clean, strike that, blood-splattered slate for the filmmaker. Gunn had complete creative control while making The Suicide Squad and it shows; not only in its graphic content and excessive vulgarity, but also in the characters Gunn chose to be in the film. Nearly everyone has been replaced from the previous Suicide Squad film except for Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Colonel Rick Flagg (Joel Kinnaman), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), and Amanda Waller (Viola Davis). The new characters are mostly unknown or barely known villains, which makes the fact that nearly all of them are expendable all the more intriguing.
While Guardians of the Galaxy and The Suicide Squad are two different films, there are some undeniable similarities. The cast of The Suicide Squad is insanely stacked, but you have to know by now that three quarters of these characters die in horribly gruesome ways. Witnessing who lives and who dies is half the fun of the film, so that won’t be spoiled here. But The Suicide Squad has a team of five characters that are grouped together and featured more than anyone else. It’s a lot like how Guardians began with Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket, and Groot. These five characters also end up being the ones you love the most.
Gunn also has a thing for taking a group of assholes and giving them meaning. In the tenth season of South Park, Eric Cartman meets Bart Simpson face to face. Bart has always been a troublemaker and a prankster, but Cartman ground up Scott Tenorman’s parents, slapped that ground parent meat in some chili, and made Scott eat his own parents. The comparison between Guardians and The Suicide Squad is a lot like the difference between Bart Simpson and Eric Cartman. The Suicide Squad features straight up murderers, demented psychopaths, and whatever the hell Weasel is.
Not unlike his other comic book film work though, Gunn typically takes what would be unlikable characters on their own and finds a purpose for them once they’re with other outcasts that they can relate to. There is a ton of heart in The Suicide Squad. You fall in love with King Shark because he’s trying to read books upside down and use one of his fingers as mustache as a brilliant disguise, but you don’t feel for him until he reveals that he’s never had a friend. Sebastian, Ratcatcher II’s go-to rat, is adorable because he waves at, offers leaves to, and flocks toward Bloodsport even though he’s afraid of rats. There’s still this camaraderie in The Suicide Squad. It may be broken and gory, but it’s still camaraderie.
There are some unusual choices that Gunn made with The Suicide Squad though. They originally wanted Will Smith to come back as Deadshot, but supposedly cast Idris Elba to replace Smith in the role. Then they backtracked and made Elba Bloodsport. The odd thing is that both Bloodsport and Peacemaker are exactly the same as Deadshot. Peacemaker seems to be a bit crazier, but both characters have a thing for making anything a weapon in their hands and having precise aim. Bloodsport is even doing everything in the film for the sake of his daughter. It gives Warner Bros a chance to bring Smith back as Deadshot down the line, but having all three characters in the same film would be serious overkill.
Harley Quinn’s action sequences in The Suicide Squad are better and more satisfying than anything Margot Robbie has done with the role. Polka Dot Man is low-key the coolest character of the film despite seeing his mom in every person that he meets. Many will likely point to the blood, the gore, and all of the F-bombs shouted mostly among teammates as Gunn cleansing his Marvel/Disney palette so to speak. However, the major difference is Starro. Starro is a giant blue and purple starfish with an eyeball in the middle of his body. He is essentially a kaiju, but he shoots miniature versions of himself out of his armpits which latch onto people’s faces, kills them, and turns their corpses into zombie-like slaves that do his bidding; all while Starro gets bigger and bigger in the process. The abridged version of this starfish heavy explanation is that Starro is fucking terrifying. The entire world is basically on the verge of bowing down to a Godzilla sized starfish that has the ability to shoot armies of himself out of his Goddamn armpits! The MCU featuring a monster or creature of any kind that is that scary is slim to none.
The Suicide Squad is an uproarious extravaganza filled with grotesque nom-noms, full-on naked dick shots, and John Cena in tighty-whities and it’s is the most fun you’ll have with an R-rated comic book film in a theater (or at home with HBO Max) since Deadpool. It’s the first comic book film to come along in a good long while that’s charming because of how weird it is. As a final note, stay/watch after the credits. James Gunn and John Cena are doing an 8-episode Peacemaker TV series for HBO Max due sometime in 2022, so that may or may not be teased in some capacity.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Once Dead, Twice Shy (Madison Avery, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Madison Avery doesn't believe in fate—until a combination of fate and free will brings her to live with her dad (which her mom thinks is a good thing for her since she can't stay out of trouble at home), gets her a pity-date ("you got your boss to get his son to ask me out? what?"), and kills her (at her junior prom. On her seventeenth birthday. of all the luck.). Now, after having claimed the amulet of the timekeeper who killed her (which is the only thing that keeps her looking like she's alive), she has to learn how to live with death. If that's even possible.
But the dark timekeeper who killed her isn't happy, because she's got his amulet, and she's not all the way dead (just sort of dead). Teaming up with Barnabas—who may or may not be a fallen angel—and the light time keeper, Chronos (or Ron for short), a guardian angel (who she forces to guard someone else) and enlisting the human help of her ex-prom date Josh (who she didn't realize she had a crush on), she has to attempt to save her soul.
All in a day's work for a dead high-schooler… right?
This was the second time I've read Once Dead, Twice Shy. I still can't figure out what the title means. Whatever it means, it was a pretty exciting book. There wasn't a second of "down-time." Madison was always up to something, learning something, running to—or from—something, or saving someone. Every chapter had little pieces of the puzzle, and the way it all fit together at the end, was priceless, hilarious, and promising.
I will say that I don't like where the story picks up. I think Harrison should have actually included the beginning of the story, where she gets killed. I read it before I read this book and I would have been rather lost without it. It was a short story included in Prom Nights from Hell. I don't care if this is technically a "book 1" in the series. It should have been book 2, or at least had the beginning of the story included in it.
I really liked Madison. I liked her character (though not some of her choices—but hey, if I was a dead seventeen year old trying to keep her dad from knowing that she could bend time, I probably would have made those same choices) and I liked her interior monologue. She was serious enough to be nerve-wracking and exciting, but sarcastic enough to give everything a touch of comic relief. I really didn't like Josh in the short prequel to this book, but as his character began to be more clear, I really started to like him. I hope things turn out well between him and Madison. I would have liked a little more romantic tension between them, but what was there was clean and innocent—a little too innocent for Madison Avery.
I don't particularly like Kim Harrison's writing style. It's very casual, it has those dreaded fragments, and it's nothing out of the ordinary. However, her way of describing both physical images and emotional feelings was very good, and I could see everything, hear everything, and feel everything her characters were experiencing. As I mentioned above, I liked the comic relief. I also liked her lack of language through the story. Madison had her own set of "words" and phrases that she used that weren't offensive in any way, and it made the story much more enjoyable. However, the only word I can think of to describe her writing is mediocre, and that and the lack of tension between Madison and Josh are the only reasons I don't give this book five stars.
Content: clean of language, violence, and sexuality of any kind. Thank you Harrison, for writing clean YA fiction!
Recommendation: Ages 12+ to lovers of sci-fi, fantasy, and general YA fiction.
This review is copyright Haley Mathiot and Night Owl Reviews.
But the dark timekeeper who killed her isn't happy, because she's got his amulet, and she's not all the way dead (just sort of dead). Teaming up with Barnabas—who may or may not be a fallen angel—and the light time keeper, Chronos (or Ron for short), a guardian angel (who she forces to guard someone else) and enlisting the human help of her ex-prom date Josh (who she didn't realize she had a crush on), she has to attempt to save her soul.
All in a day's work for a dead high-schooler… right?
This was the second time I've read Once Dead, Twice Shy. I still can't figure out what the title means. Whatever it means, it was a pretty exciting book. There wasn't a second of "down-time." Madison was always up to something, learning something, running to—or from—something, or saving someone. Every chapter had little pieces of the puzzle, and the way it all fit together at the end, was priceless, hilarious, and promising.
I will say that I don't like where the story picks up. I think Harrison should have actually included the beginning of the story, where she gets killed. I read it before I read this book and I would have been rather lost without it. It was a short story included in Prom Nights from Hell. I don't care if this is technically a "book 1" in the series. It should have been book 2, or at least had the beginning of the story included in it.
I really liked Madison. I liked her character (though not some of her choices—but hey, if I was a dead seventeen year old trying to keep her dad from knowing that she could bend time, I probably would have made those same choices) and I liked her interior monologue. She was serious enough to be nerve-wracking and exciting, but sarcastic enough to give everything a touch of comic relief. I really didn't like Josh in the short prequel to this book, but as his character began to be more clear, I really started to like him. I hope things turn out well between him and Madison. I would have liked a little more romantic tension between them, but what was there was clean and innocent—a little too innocent for Madison Avery.
I don't particularly like Kim Harrison's writing style. It's very casual, it has those dreaded fragments, and it's nothing out of the ordinary. However, her way of describing both physical images and emotional feelings was very good, and I could see everything, hear everything, and feel everything her characters were experiencing. As I mentioned above, I liked the comic relief. I also liked her lack of language through the story. Madison had her own set of "words" and phrases that she used that weren't offensive in any way, and it made the story much more enjoyable. However, the only word I can think of to describe her writing is mediocre, and that and the lack of tension between Madison and Josh are the only reasons I don't give this book five stars.
Content: clean of language, violence, and sexuality of any kind. Thank you Harrison, for writing clean YA fiction!
Recommendation: Ages 12+ to lovers of sci-fi, fantasy, and general YA fiction.
This review is copyright Haley Mathiot and Night Owl Reviews.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
If you hold the film rights to an iconic and beloved comic book series, one would think you would do everything possible to see that it flourishes under you watch. For 29th Century Fox, The Fantastic Four is an asset that should be a gem of their studio as the long-running Marvel comic series has had legions of fans for generations.
The previous two films did well enough but still had their detractors amongst the fans. So, Fox opted for a hiatus and then a radical reboot of the series complete with casting choices that were considered very questionable.
The new version features Miles Teller as Reed Richards, a young man obsessed with teleportation to the point that his teachers and other students laugh at him for his odd and obsessive ways.
His only friend is Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), who despite a lack of scientific knowledge supports Reed in his efforts which eventually allow him to be recruited by Dr. Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey), who discloses that he is working on a large scale teleportation device and seeing how Reed pulled it off with a device he made in his garage, is eager to see what he can do at a fully-funded facility.
Reed meets Franklins adopted daughter Sue (Kate Mara), as well as his son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), while they work with the mercurial Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), to complete the device.
When the team finds success, they are horrified to learn that the government plans to take over control of the project so Ben, Victor, Johnny, and Reed opt to use it themselves to visit the other dimension in order to leave their mark in history.
Things at first go well but when a mysterious force envelops them, odd things start to happen when they return home. Reed is capable of stretching himself, Johnny is a living fire, Ben is covered in rocks, and Sue is phasing in and out.
Flashing forward the group is under the watch of the government and Reed has fled not wanting to be a part of whatever is going on. Ben is used for special operations and blames Reed for abandoning them as Sue and Johnny are prepped for the field.
Now one would think a setup like this has some potential at the very least for some action and great FX. Sadly the film lurches ahead fairly light on action. The threat to the film appears, and within 10 minutes has moved to a fairly underwhelming final conflict that is so obviously done in front of a Green Screen that it loses much of the intended impact.
The best I can say for the film is that it is a forgettable and flawed film that tries to launch a new franchise in a new way. But the casting choices in the film are so wrong, that it undermines it at every step. Setting aside the debate over an African American Johnny Storm, Miles Teller is so bland; he just does not scream leading man or driving force behind the team.
The same can be said for pretty much the entire cast. The backstories hint at various things but their actions conflict several aspects of the film which to be honest are fairly forgettable.
The entire movie is like watching a Jr. College Fan Film where the cast has a Green Screen and studio funding, but not a clue on how to carry out a story, modern action sequences of character development.
Fox needs to take a serious page from Sony and work with Marvel if they are going to continue this franchise, or return the rights to Marvel so fans can finally get a film that does justice to the source material.
I am glad that Director Josh Trank is no longer associated with the pending Star Wars film as this movie is a train wreck that spits all over the history and legacy of the source material.
http://sknr.net/2015/08/07/the-fantastic-four/
The previous two films did well enough but still had their detractors amongst the fans. So, Fox opted for a hiatus and then a radical reboot of the series complete with casting choices that were considered very questionable.
The new version features Miles Teller as Reed Richards, a young man obsessed with teleportation to the point that his teachers and other students laugh at him for his odd and obsessive ways.
His only friend is Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), who despite a lack of scientific knowledge supports Reed in his efforts which eventually allow him to be recruited by Dr. Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey), who discloses that he is working on a large scale teleportation device and seeing how Reed pulled it off with a device he made in his garage, is eager to see what he can do at a fully-funded facility.
Reed meets Franklins adopted daughter Sue (Kate Mara), as well as his son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), while they work with the mercurial Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), to complete the device.
When the team finds success, they are horrified to learn that the government plans to take over control of the project so Ben, Victor, Johnny, and Reed opt to use it themselves to visit the other dimension in order to leave their mark in history.
Things at first go well but when a mysterious force envelops them, odd things start to happen when they return home. Reed is capable of stretching himself, Johnny is a living fire, Ben is covered in rocks, and Sue is phasing in and out.
Flashing forward the group is under the watch of the government and Reed has fled not wanting to be a part of whatever is going on. Ben is used for special operations and blames Reed for abandoning them as Sue and Johnny are prepped for the field.
Now one would think a setup like this has some potential at the very least for some action and great FX. Sadly the film lurches ahead fairly light on action. The threat to the film appears, and within 10 minutes has moved to a fairly underwhelming final conflict that is so obviously done in front of a Green Screen that it loses much of the intended impact.
The best I can say for the film is that it is a forgettable and flawed film that tries to launch a new franchise in a new way. But the casting choices in the film are so wrong, that it undermines it at every step. Setting aside the debate over an African American Johnny Storm, Miles Teller is so bland; he just does not scream leading man or driving force behind the team.
The same can be said for pretty much the entire cast. The backstories hint at various things but their actions conflict several aspects of the film which to be honest are fairly forgettable.
The entire movie is like watching a Jr. College Fan Film where the cast has a Green Screen and studio funding, but not a clue on how to carry out a story, modern action sequences of character development.
Fox needs to take a serious page from Sony and work with Marvel if they are going to continue this franchise, or return the rights to Marvel so fans can finally get a film that does justice to the source material.
I am glad that Director Josh Trank is no longer associated with the pending Star Wars film as this movie is a train wreck that spits all over the history and legacy of the source material.
http://sknr.net/2015/08/07/the-fantastic-four/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Thor starts when astrophysicist Jane Foster (Portman) discovering a cosmic event in the New Mexico desert with her team Erik Selvig (Skarsgard) and Darcy (Dennings). We head up to Asgard next as Odin (Hopkins) tells the history of his people, the battle with the frost giants, his two sons Thor (Hemsworth) and Loki (Hiddleston) that will one day replace him as King.
When the Frost Giants try to enter Asgard, Thor decides to lead a team to retaliate, which sees Odin banish him to Earth. Thor must learn his place in the universe, with Jane helping him, while Loki takes his place as King of Asgard even if his past sees him wanting the events of the film to happen.
Thoughts on Thor
Characters – Thor is the son of Odin, he is soon to become King, but his over confrontational nature sees him disobeying his father’s orders, he is a fearless warrior who is banished to Earth, without his powers. This is a lesson for him to learn about fighting the right wars, not starting them, until he learns this, his powers won’t return to him. Janes Foster is an astrophysicist that has been searching for answers in the cosmos, her research has seen her finding unexplained answers in the universe, she could finally get answers with Thor’s appearance, she is willing risk her career for answers. Loki is the brother of Thor, he has been planning on taking over Asgard instead of his brother, he knows his past and has been waiting for his moment to become King. Odin is the king of Asgard, he has kept the peace for centuries and is running short on patience for his son’s action, he wants to teach Thor a lesson, while needing to tell Loki about his own past.
Performances – Chris Hemsworth is fantastic in the leading role, he has the look and shows the comic timing which has become the staple of his character. Natalie Portman is strong enough even if the character is disappointing, Tim Hiddleston shows us his calm persona behind his character, with Anthony Hopkins doing everything you would imagine he would bring to a father figure.
Story – The story here follows Thor as he must learn his truth strength when it comes to one day become King of Asgard, this will see him losing his powers and learning to control his desires while his brother is positioning himself for power. Thor is yet another character we knew very little about going in (unless you read the comics), we get to see his past, how the world he is from is created, the dynamics behind the characters involved, even before we get to Earth. On Earth we learn more about the SHIELD and how they are still investigating the bigger picture of unexplained weapons. This does show us just how important waiting for power is more important than being given power, we get to see how another hero is introduced to us for the bigger picture.
Action/Fantasy – The action is at the large scale here with the battles being hordes of enemies for Thor at times, we do get the giant battle against the enemy physically bigger and stronger that Thor must learn to defeat as well as the traditional final fight which shows us the sacrifice a king must make. The fantasy world created shows us the world of Gods being real, being one away from our own, while still being connected in folk lore.
Settings – The vision of Asgard is beautiful, with towering buildings, a place where you would imagine Gods living. The second settings takes us to New Mexico which plans into the fish out of water scenario.
Special Effects – The effects are the best in the franchise to date, the pure scale of the enemies involved, the worlds created and fight sequences makes this look beautiful to watch even with the CGI heavy usage.
Scene of the Movie – Bifrost fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Certain parts of Loki’s plan seem confusing.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the enjoyable comic book movies you will see, we get the big action sequences, we get some laughs and we see the star of Chris Hemsworth take full advantage of his opportunity.
Overall: Great Fun.
When the Frost Giants try to enter Asgard, Thor decides to lead a team to retaliate, which sees Odin banish him to Earth. Thor must learn his place in the universe, with Jane helping him, while Loki takes his place as King of Asgard even if his past sees him wanting the events of the film to happen.
Thoughts on Thor
Characters – Thor is the son of Odin, he is soon to become King, but his over confrontational nature sees him disobeying his father’s orders, he is a fearless warrior who is banished to Earth, without his powers. This is a lesson for him to learn about fighting the right wars, not starting them, until he learns this, his powers won’t return to him. Janes Foster is an astrophysicist that has been searching for answers in the cosmos, her research has seen her finding unexplained answers in the universe, she could finally get answers with Thor’s appearance, she is willing risk her career for answers. Loki is the brother of Thor, he has been planning on taking over Asgard instead of his brother, he knows his past and has been waiting for his moment to become King. Odin is the king of Asgard, he has kept the peace for centuries and is running short on patience for his son’s action, he wants to teach Thor a lesson, while needing to tell Loki about his own past.
Performances – Chris Hemsworth is fantastic in the leading role, he has the look and shows the comic timing which has become the staple of his character. Natalie Portman is strong enough even if the character is disappointing, Tim Hiddleston shows us his calm persona behind his character, with Anthony Hopkins doing everything you would imagine he would bring to a father figure.
Story – The story here follows Thor as he must learn his truth strength when it comes to one day become King of Asgard, this will see him losing his powers and learning to control his desires while his brother is positioning himself for power. Thor is yet another character we knew very little about going in (unless you read the comics), we get to see his past, how the world he is from is created, the dynamics behind the characters involved, even before we get to Earth. On Earth we learn more about the SHIELD and how they are still investigating the bigger picture of unexplained weapons. This does show us just how important waiting for power is more important than being given power, we get to see how another hero is introduced to us for the bigger picture.
Action/Fantasy – The action is at the large scale here with the battles being hordes of enemies for Thor at times, we do get the giant battle against the enemy physically bigger and stronger that Thor must learn to defeat as well as the traditional final fight which shows us the sacrifice a king must make. The fantasy world created shows us the world of Gods being real, being one away from our own, while still being connected in folk lore.
Settings – The vision of Asgard is beautiful, with towering buildings, a place where you would imagine Gods living. The second settings takes us to New Mexico which plans into the fish out of water scenario.
Special Effects – The effects are the best in the franchise to date, the pure scale of the enemies involved, the worlds created and fight sequences makes this look beautiful to watch even with the CGI heavy usage.
Scene of the Movie – Bifrost fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Certain parts of Loki’s plan seem confusing.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the enjoyable comic book movies you will see, we get the big action sequences, we get some laughs and we see the star of Chris Hemsworth take full advantage of his opportunity.
Overall: Great Fun.
Book Creator for iPad
Education and Book
App
* THE No.1 Book app for the iPad in 90+ countries. * Voted Best Educational App in the 2015 BETT...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.