Search
Search results
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I had a dream. A sob. A sing.
You remember in “Aliens” when Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) fought through hell and high water against that “bitch” to protect the youngster Newt (Carrie Henn)? And then how betrayed you felt in that emotional investment at the start of “Alien 3”?
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Sep 21, 2017
Old Man Logan (2 more)
Amazing R rated comic book movie
Amazing story
One of the best Marvel movies
Contains spoilers, click to show
Oh my god, this was fantastic. I knew this was going to be a amazing movie going in but it just blew my mind. I never thought we were going to get an Old Man Logan. But Hugh Jackman played the role in away I didn't see coming. From the opening scene inside the limo was the best. Logan was so angry but he really didn't want to bust out the claws. But when you are push to the brink anger just pops out. It was the first time I think I have ever seen blood in an X-men movie. It just got so much better after that.
The addition of Professor X was kind of crazy. I didn't know how it would play out but him being bat shit crazy was a totally different side of him that worked. He really helped show the human side of being a mutant and show Logan there can be peaceful side of life. Them helping the farmer was one of the best scenes in the movie because it helped Logan bring out the human in him and not just his animal instincts.
The little girl that played X-23 was great. I did not know a girl could play anger so well. And that her parents would let her decapitate someone. I really hope they do a full X-23 movie with her grown up, I think it will help keep the series alive.
The death of Logan and Charles hit me so hard. I grew up watching these characters grow and get old and it was very sad to see it end. Logan's burial was done so fast but the kids had to escape, I do wish there was a little more to it and more of a score. But overall fantastic ending to a great Wolverine.
If you didn't see this movie in the theater that's to bad. If you haven't seen at all go see this movie now.
The addition of Professor X was kind of crazy. I didn't know how it would play out but him being bat shit crazy was a totally different side of him that worked. He really helped show the human side of being a mutant and show Logan there can be peaceful side of life. Them helping the farmer was one of the best scenes in the movie because it helped Logan bring out the human in him and not just his animal instincts.
The little girl that played X-23 was great. I did not know a girl could play anger so well. And that her parents would let her decapitate someone. I really hope they do a full X-23 movie with her grown up, I think it will help keep the series alive.
The death of Logan and Charles hit me so hard. I grew up watching these characters grow and get old and it was very sad to see it end. Logan's burial was done so fast but the kids had to escape, I do wish there was a little more to it and more of a score. But overall fantastic ending to a great Wolverine.
If you didn't see this movie in the theater that's to bad. If you haven't seen at all go see this movie now.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Queens of Geek in Books
May 1, 2018
THIS BOOK WAS GREAT. It was a fun, quick read, but it involved three BFFs, one of which is autistic with social anxiety, and her friends know this and are incredibly supportive. The second girl is openly bisexual. The third friend, the boy, is Hispanic. The three of them take an epic trip to a big Comicon in LA; the bisexual girl (Charlie) co-starred in a zombie movie, and is a popular Youtuber, so when she's invited to the Con she drags her two BFFs with her. Once there, she meets an idol of hers, another Youtuber, and discovers that her idol has a crush on her! So while dealing with her douchebag ex (her co-star from the movie), the other Youtuber asks Charlie out, and the two girls start a romance.
Meanwhile, the autistic girl (Taylor) and the Hispanic boy (Jamie) have loved each other for ages but been too afraid to admit how they feel. Largely left on their own, because Charlie's manager couldn't get them VIP passes, they explore the Con, geeking out over things and meeting another autistic woman, a comic book artist who gives Taylor some amazing advice about being afraid but doing things anyway.
I really really loved this book. I loved seeing autistic characters treated by their peers as just regular people with quirks, like everyone has. Taylor's friends support her when her brain freaks out, and make allowances for her needs, but don't treat her like she's disabled or fragile. I loved seeing how tight the bonds of friendship were between the three teens, and how excited for each other they were, even when good things happening meant less time to spend with each other.
This was just a really lovely, feel-good book with lots of minority representation, by an autistic author who knows what she's talking about. This is one more book off my Autism Reading List, and my pick for a book about friendship from the Litsy Booked 2018 Challenge.
You can find all my reviews, and the full Autism Reading List, at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Meanwhile, the autistic girl (Taylor) and the Hispanic boy (Jamie) have loved each other for ages but been too afraid to admit how they feel. Largely left on their own, because Charlie's manager couldn't get them VIP passes, they explore the Con, geeking out over things and meeting another autistic woman, a comic book artist who gives Taylor some amazing advice about being afraid but doing things anyway.
I really really loved this book. I loved seeing autistic characters treated by their peers as just regular people with quirks, like everyone has. Taylor's friends support her when her brain freaks out, and make allowances for her needs, but don't treat her like she's disabled or fragile. I loved seeing how tight the bonds of friendship were between the three teens, and how excited for each other they were, even when good things happening meant less time to spend with each other.
This was just a really lovely, feel-good book with lots of minority representation, by an autistic author who knows what she's talking about. This is one more book off my Autism Reading List, and my pick for a book about friendship from the Litsy Booked 2018 Challenge.
You can find all my reviews, and the full Autism Reading List, at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Sins of the Father (Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Season 3, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Set in an alternate season three, SINS OF THE FATHER features two interesting, although slightly competitive, plots. The first one has Pike (featured in the movie Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the comic, [b:Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Omnibus, Vol. 1|271365|Buffy the Vampire Slayer Omnibus, Vol. 1|Joss Whedon|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348752850s/271365.jpg|263081]) coming to town for Buffy's help with a stone demon, while the second deals with Giles and his past. Quite obviously, demons of all kinds are the theme of the book.
This is my first foray into the Buffy novels and I have to say it was a pretty good one to start with. The characterizations were well-done, most notably Willow and Xander (I could just hear their dialogue and see their expressions), with the exceptions of Cordy, who sounded like herself about half the time, and Giles, who just seemed off somehow. The plot moves well enough along and the action was well-written. I especially liked their new vampire equipment that you can't help but think, "Why didn't anyone come up with this before?" The banter was great and definitely had the feel of the show, it made me laugh quite a few times. The only thing I had a problem with was Buffy's indecision about Pike and Angel. While I get the part about Pike being a 'normal' guy who knows that she fights paranormal crime and isn't put off, but why does she have such strong feelings for him still? It's been two, two-and-a-half years since she even saw him, I just don't see it. Also, the 'impossible love' between Buffy and Angel was redundant. If anyone has ever seen the show (and how many are going to read the books if they aren't a fan?), they already know all the angsty melodrama on the subject. One remark on the subject was all we needed, not repeatedly using just about the same two phrases a million times. With those two quibbles said, this was an entertaining book that took me back to my favorite time of the show, the high school years.
This is my first foray into the Buffy novels and I have to say it was a pretty good one to start with. The characterizations were well-done, most notably Willow and Xander (I could just hear their dialogue and see their expressions), with the exceptions of Cordy, who sounded like herself about half the time, and Giles, who just seemed off somehow. The plot moves well enough along and the action was well-written. I especially liked their new vampire equipment that you can't help but think, "Why didn't anyone come up with this before?" The banter was great and definitely had the feel of the show, it made me laugh quite a few times. The only thing I had a problem with was Buffy's indecision about Pike and Angel. While I get the part about Pike being a 'normal' guy who knows that she fights paranormal crime and isn't put off, but why does she have such strong feelings for him still? It's been two, two-and-a-half years since she even saw him, I just don't see it. Also, the 'impossible love' between Buffy and Angel was redundant. If anyone has ever seen the show (and how many are going to read the books if they aren't a fan?), they already know all the angsty melodrama on the subject. One remark on the subject was all we needed, not repeatedly using just about the same two phrases a million times. With those two quibbles said, this was an entertaining book that took me back to my favorite time of the show, the high school years.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Meet the Parents (2000) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Lies do not pay...
Contains spoilers, click to show
This awkward comedy of errors has gone on to spawn a whole franchise, with the latest installment, "Meet The Parents: Little Fockers" just wrapping up its run in theatres as I write. Ben Stiller is Gaylord (Greg) Focker, who is trying to impress his prospective father in law, Robert De Niro on top form, as he plans to propose to his daughter.
The couple 'meet the parents' as they stay the weekend for his future sister in law's wedding and things obviously go down hill from there, with the inevitable comic effect. He meets the rest of her family and several friends, all of whom seem not to care a jot that Stiller's Focker is given little consideration.
On top of all this, De Niro's father character is an Ex-CIA agent, which further compounds the problems, but when all is said and done, I find it hard to completely sympathise with Stiller's protagonist, as whilst some of the problems and situations are beyond his control, many of them are caused by his constant lying.
The film seems to be a little confused as whether it supports Stiller as he lies his way through the film, to everyone, including his hosts, or De Niro who correctly points out towards the film's conclusion that things might have gone better if he had only told the truth.
I personally agree with De Niro. The hero of this film is a liar and he pays for those lies, but that is turn makes it difficult for me to sympathise or empathise too much with him. Having said that, this is well-played cringe-worthy comedy, and it does a great job of conveying that sense and drawing us into the discomfort of the characters. Owen Wilson's lengthy cameo as the perfect, divine ex-fiancé was pitched perfectly, truly capturing the ideas that we have over matching up to the past, though over-played, on a metaphorical level, it was brilliant.
Overall, it made me laugh throughout, but I wouldn't say that it was hysterical, though it was entertaining, moderately thoughtful but promotes a brand of humour that isn't what I would consider to be number one for me.
The couple 'meet the parents' as they stay the weekend for his future sister in law's wedding and things obviously go down hill from there, with the inevitable comic effect. He meets the rest of her family and several friends, all of whom seem not to care a jot that Stiller's Focker is given little consideration.
On top of all this, De Niro's father character is an Ex-CIA agent, which further compounds the problems, but when all is said and done, I find it hard to completely sympathise with Stiller's protagonist, as whilst some of the problems and situations are beyond his control, many of them are caused by his constant lying.
The film seems to be a little confused as whether it supports Stiller as he lies his way through the film, to everyone, including his hosts, or De Niro who correctly points out towards the film's conclusion that things might have gone better if he had only told the truth.
I personally agree with De Niro. The hero of this film is a liar and he pays for those lies, but that is turn makes it difficult for me to sympathise or empathise too much with him. Having said that, this is well-played cringe-worthy comedy, and it does a great job of conveying that sense and drawing us into the discomfort of the characters. Owen Wilson's lengthy cameo as the perfect, divine ex-fiancé was pitched perfectly, truly capturing the ideas that we have over matching up to the past, though over-played, on a metaphorical level, it was brilliant.
Overall, it made me laugh throughout, but I wouldn't say that it was hysterical, though it was entertaining, moderately thoughtful but promotes a brand of humour that isn't what I would consider to be number one for me.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
May 11, 2019
The humour
Chris Hemsworth as Thor
Tom Hiddleston as Loki
Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/The Hulk
Taika Waititi as Korg
Cate Blanchett as Hela
Jeff Goldblum's Grandmaster is a God send (1 more)
Tessa Thompson as Valkiyrie
The Action was awesome specifically Hulk vs Thor and the final bridge battle
The synth score
"Piss off Ghost"
Perhaps, the most entertaining and enjoyable movie in the MCU since Iron Man?
There’s so many reasons why I enjoy Thor: Ragnarok, but it has to start with the direction and vision of Taika Waititi. He’s a genre changer in the comic book man movie universe. From his Kiwi sense of humor, to the choice in mood music, to the simply fun action sequences; Thor: Ragnarok is a two hour smile that would make it appear I had Botox injections, since my facial expression stayed happy.
Thor is one of my favorite characters in the MCU and I like the way the fat has been chewed off in his movies. Less memorable characters are disposed of, and screen time is given to the characters you want to see. Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster is a gift from God. Loki is Loki and who doesn’t love Loki? Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie has a lot of depth. Cate Blanchett’s Hela might be in the top 5 in baddest of bad MCU villains, and puts the D in dysfunctional families. Plus, Idris Elba’s Heimdall deserved his own movie, and perhaps the number one scene stealer, and one of the reasons why this movie is truly special is Taika Waititi’s Korg. Who knew a CGI rock could be so hilarious? His voice is infectious, and I want to see more of Korg.
Hulk and Banner are both used just right. The synth-pop score makes me want to dance a boogie groove. Thor’s flaw is there’s too many interesting storylines, which causes the film to jump some from character to character. Watching Chris Hemsworth ham it up as Thor is what these types of movies should be all about. Putting the F back in fun and having a helluva time in the process doing so.
There’s so many reasons why I enjoy Thor: Ragnarok, but it has to start with the direction and vision of Taika Waititi. He’s a genre changer in the comic book man movie universe. From his Kiwi sense of humor, to the choice in mood music, to the simply fun action sequences; Thor: Ragnarok is a two hour smile that would make it appear I had Botox injections, since my facial expression stayed happy.
Thor is one of my favorite characters in the MCU and I like the way the fat has been chewed off in his movies. Less memorable characters are disposed of, and screen time is given to the characters you want to see. Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster is a gift from God. Loki is Loki and who doesn’t love Loki? Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie has a lot of depth. Cate Blanchett’s Hela might be in the top 5 in baddest of bad MCU villains, and puts the D in dysfunctional families. Plus, Idris Elba’s Heimdall deserved his own movie, and perhaps the number one scene stealer, and one of the reasons why this movie is truly special is Taika Waititi’s Korg. Who knew a CGI rock could be so hilarious? His voice is infectious, and I want to see more of Korg.
Hulk and Banner are both used just right. The synth-pop score makes me want to dance a boogie groove. Thor’s flaw is there’s too many interesting storylines, which causes the film to jump some from character to character. Watching Chris Hemsworth ham it up as Thor is what these types of movies should be all about. Putting the F back in fun and having a helluva time in the process doing so.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
More like Hellno
#hellboy is an #abomination, a brain dead overlong shit show of bad decisions & sheer laziness. I can honestly say i was so pumped for this film but it was such a monstrosoty that i considered walking out after just 30mins. Lets kick this off so i can at least pretend i havent wasted my night with this dross. To sum the film up its a cross between #eastenders & #kingsman (no not the good kingsman either that dire sequel #kingsmanthegoldencircle) & as you can imagine it doesnt work at all. Its not gritty, its not #funny, its not #stylish & its not well made, in fact its also not even half as good as it seems to think it is either coming across so #happy & smug with itself its practically flipping you the middle finger the entire run time. Tacky is a great word i would use to describe this movie, tacky & childish with #humour that wouldn't go a miss in a kids tv program (eg burp jokes, dribble jokes & #jokes about kissing old ladies). Acting is poor everyone just looks & talks half arsed like they can't be bothered, delivering emotionless lines without conviction making dialog a bland back & forth chore. I hope you like bickering too because theres a #hell of alot of pointless bickering scenes that just feel unnecessary. Not one character is developed or likeable not even hellboy himself with the #villain #millajovovich feeling like a bad guy in a stage play just minus the hissing. Cgi is so woefully bad is downright embarrassing sticking out like a saw thumb ruining the forgettable action scenes. Camera work is choppy & the film is badly edited with disorienting quick cuts. Sets & #creatures are bland/unimaginative & prosthetics feel cheaply made (even hellboys face feels off round the eyes). Plot was so paint by numbers i lost interest midway & put my head in my hands when the terrible climax hit (Talk about build up with no pay off). Hellboy ultimatly prooves filling a film with #violence, swearing, popular #music & #popculture references doesnt make your film cool if everything else around it lacks. Lazy forgettable boring poorly made shite. Avoid. #odeon #odeonlimitless #superhero #ronperlman #strangerthings #dc #guillermodeltoro #demons #horror #gore #comic