Search
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Not My Daughter in Books
Oct 5, 2020
I am so happy to have the opportunity to be part of the blog tour for Not My Daughter by Suzy K. Quinn. Thank you to the team at HQ, for sending me an e-copy in exchange for an honest review. Have a look at the Blog Tour Banner below and check out the other bloggers.
Suzy K Quinn is a British fiction author, and writes in three different genres: psychological thriller, comedy and romance. She was first published by Hachette in 2010 with her debut novel Glass Geishas (now Night Girls), then self-published a romance series, the Ivy Lessons, which became an international bestseller and a #1 Kindle romance bestseller in the US and UK.
After her second daughter was born in 2013, she self-published the Bad Mother’s Diary series, which also went on to become a #1 Kindle romantic comedy bestseller. Suzy K Quinn’s novels have been translated into 7 languages and her books have sold over ¾ million copies worldwide.
She lives in Wivenhoe, Essex, with her husband Demi and two daughters, and travels to Mexico every year to write and study Mayan story telling. Suzy loves her family, friends and readers, but when pushed to add more to the list, she also loves travelling, food and alcohol.
Synopsis:
Lorna has been trying to protect her daughter Liberty for sixteen years. There are dark secrets from her past about her father that Lorna wishes her daughter never finds out. Liberty’s father is a monster, and the best solution is to hide. Forever.
But Liberty has other plans. One day, Liberty decides to find her father, no matter the cost. And Lorna can’t protect her if she doesn’t know where she went…
My Thoughts:
I really enjoyed Not My Daughter. It was a novel that kept me on my toes throughout the whole book and I was eager to know what happens in the end and who the true villain is.
We begin the story in one way, where we have an idea of who the bad person is, and how Lorna is the protector. But once we start reading more, this story becomes more twisted, and we don’t know who to trust anymore. This is something I see in books quite often, but it is not usually as well-written. Suzy did an amazing job writing this part, and making us switch sides as she wanted us to.
The ending was not predictable at all, although, it was a bit unrealistic. However, it really fit nicely with the whole story and I cannot be disappointed.
It is interesting to see how the mother-daughter relationship develops. But more so, how a relationship forms when a daughter wants to get to know her father, no matter what. You meet this person that you share genes with, and you want them to like you. You want them to accept you, like nothing happened. We could see this wish in Liberty as she meets her father – the need to be accepted as a daughter.
I would recommend this book to everyone that loves mystery thrillers. It is a one of a kind, and a very well-written one too.
Suzy K Quinn is a British fiction author, and writes in three different genres: psychological thriller, comedy and romance. She was first published by Hachette in 2010 with her debut novel Glass Geishas (now Night Girls), then self-published a romance series, the Ivy Lessons, which became an international bestseller and a #1 Kindle romance bestseller in the US and UK.
After her second daughter was born in 2013, she self-published the Bad Mother’s Diary series, which also went on to become a #1 Kindle romantic comedy bestseller. Suzy K Quinn’s novels have been translated into 7 languages and her books have sold over ¾ million copies worldwide.
She lives in Wivenhoe, Essex, with her husband Demi and two daughters, and travels to Mexico every year to write and study Mayan story telling. Suzy loves her family, friends and readers, but when pushed to add more to the list, she also loves travelling, food and alcohol.
Synopsis:
Lorna has been trying to protect her daughter Liberty for sixteen years. There are dark secrets from her past about her father that Lorna wishes her daughter never finds out. Liberty’s father is a monster, and the best solution is to hide. Forever.
But Liberty has other plans. One day, Liberty decides to find her father, no matter the cost. And Lorna can’t protect her if she doesn’t know where she went…
My Thoughts:
I really enjoyed Not My Daughter. It was a novel that kept me on my toes throughout the whole book and I was eager to know what happens in the end and who the true villain is.
We begin the story in one way, where we have an idea of who the bad person is, and how Lorna is the protector. But once we start reading more, this story becomes more twisted, and we don’t know who to trust anymore. This is something I see in books quite often, but it is not usually as well-written. Suzy did an amazing job writing this part, and making us switch sides as she wanted us to.
The ending was not predictable at all, although, it was a bit unrealistic. However, it really fit nicely with the whole story and I cannot be disappointed.
It is interesting to see how the mother-daughter relationship develops. But more so, how a relationship forms when a daughter wants to get to know her father, no matter what. You meet this person that you share genes with, and you want them to like you. You want them to accept you, like nothing happened. We could see this wish in Liberty as she meets her father – the need to be accepted as a daughter.
I would recommend this book to everyone that loves mystery thrillers. It is a one of a kind, and a very well-written one too.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) in Movies
Aug 8, 2022
Phase four of the MCU has been interesting so far to say the least. Some projects have been great, some have been a little uninspired, but in its attempts to set up multiple overarching story threads, it feels a little wayward, especially in comparison to the recently concluded Infinity Saga. Thor: Love & Thunder has unfortunately arrived right in the middle of this new era of uncertainty, and is a film that ultimately feels a little directionless itself. It adapts a hugely beloved comic arc, an arc that could have potentially used two movies to flesh everything out properly. In this arc, Gorr the God Butcher is a big deal, he feels threatening, menacing, dangerous. In the film, Christian Bale is giving it his all, and there are moments when Gorr is genuinely creepy as hell, but the stakes never feel particularly high, resulting in a villain that feels like a shadow of his comic counterpart. Chris Hemsworth has proven by now that he is a perfect fit for Thor himself, but by this fourth entry, it genuinely feels that he is a straight up dumbass, and is miles away from his character growth in the first Thor. Herein lies the main issue I had with Love & Thunder. Ragnarok was a well balanced MCU film in terms of tone. It provided a much needed shakeup after the disappointment of The Dark World, and Taika Waititi was an inspired choice to bring the quirk. The comedy is tight, lands more often than not, whilst boasting some memorable set pieces. L&T takes the comedy aspect, and doubles down hard. It's joke after joke, to a point where a lot of it falls flat. It reminded me of Guardians of the Galaxy 2 in that respect. It's not terrible by any means, but it's balance feels completely off. There are some great set pieces to be fair. An early scene that involves an attack on New Asgard is a highlight, and almost feels like a horror film at times. It's also where we meet Jane Fosters Thor, who looks comic accurate, and is a genuinely great addition to the movie overall. There's another scene later on that takes place in the shadow realm that provides another highlight. It's mostly in black and white, and it feels unique to the MCU. It's one of a few inspired moments that prevent L&T from becoming a complete misfire.
Any other gripes from me would require stepping into spoiler territory so I'll leave it there. Love & Thunder is frequently dumb, but equally fun, colourful and loud, despite being a bit of a mess. The more Marvel Studios venture into Phase Four, the more sporadic and shaky it feels. I have no doubt that everything will plateau into a solid narrative again, I just hope that moment comes sooner, rather than later.
On a final note, the person I watched this with leaned over to me around the halfway point, and said that Thor just sounds like Boris Johnson when he talks, and now I can't unhear it. If I have to suffer, then you do to.
Any other gripes from me would require stepping into spoiler territory so I'll leave it there. Love & Thunder is frequently dumb, but equally fun, colourful and loud, despite being a bit of a mess. The more Marvel Studios venture into Phase Four, the more sporadic and shaky it feels. I have no doubt that everything will plateau into a solid narrative again, I just hope that moment comes sooner, rather than later.
On a final note, the person I watched this with leaned over to me around the halfway point, and said that Thor just sounds like Boris Johnson when he talks, and now I can't unhear it. If I have to suffer, then you do to.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Do you like time travel
“It feels like a movie born from a different era.” That is the thought that immediately flooded my brain upon leaving the cinema after watching Venom. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing of course. Hundreds of amazing films have been born well before superhero films became the successful genre they are today.
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Doom Patrol in TV
Jul 4, 2020
Not Your Average Superhero Show - 7/10
Doom Patrol Is a 2019 action/sci-fi, comedy/drama superhero TV series based on the DC comic created by writers Arnold Drake and Bob Haney and artist Bruno Premiani. It was developed by Jeremy Carver, and produced by DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. Television for DC Universe. Doom Patrol is a spin-off of Titans, a superhero TV series also on DC Universe. Starring Brendan Fraser, Timothy Dalton, Alan Tudyk, Matt Bomer and April Bowlby.
Doom Patrol picks up after the events of Titans, and finds the titular heroes in the town of Cloverton, Ohio. However they are a long, long way from being anything resembling heroes. The group consisting of Robotman/Clifford "Cliff" Steele (Brendan Fraser), Negative-man/Larry Trainor (Matt Bomer), Elasti-woman/Rita Farr (April Bowlby) and Crazy Jane/Kay (Diane Guerrero) are taken in by Chief/Dr. Niles Caulder (Timothy Dalton).
They each have suffered horrible accidents that have left them scarred or disfigured but also imbued them with superpowers. They have come together in Doom Manor under the guidance of Dr. Caulder to try and overcome their own demons. However when the good Dr. leaves the manor, a quick venture into the town for the team has far-reaching consequences. An enemy called Mr. Nobody (Alan Tudyk) comes to exact revenge and takes the doctor and everyone in the town with him. Luckily they are left with a possible new member and old friend of the doctor, who has come to check on the town and him, Cyborg (Jovian Wade) from Titans.
This show is really weird and definitely not for everyone. I didn't have the opportunity to watch the Titans show before this, so I don't know how much it affects it in anyway or if it's in the same vein. I also never read the Doom Patrol comics. It didn't seem to me like there was a clear plot at first but the writers are definitely going for a unique and captivating way of grabbing the audience. It's also rated TV-MA and it feels like they're kind of going for that Deadpool audience and a dark humor comedy feel. That being said it's not terrible, it really grows on you. To me the first episode was kind of hit or miss but by the second episode it really pulls you in. The characters motivations and backgrounds are very unique and emotionally appealing. The general atmosphere of the show was kind of all over the place; I mean it's a little bit drama, a little bit action, sometimes slightly horror and kind of gory and a superhero element on top of all all of it, plus sci-fi.
There is a pretty exclusively entertaining character, the narrator/villain Mr. nobody who is played by Alan Tudyk. He is very funny and charismatic and isn't afraid to break the fourth wall, right away in the beginning of the first episode. I guess it's a pretty good show but not for everyone, I would give it a 7/10.
Doom Patrol picks up after the events of Titans, and finds the titular heroes in the town of Cloverton, Ohio. However they are a long, long way from being anything resembling heroes. The group consisting of Robotman/Clifford "Cliff" Steele (Brendan Fraser), Negative-man/Larry Trainor (Matt Bomer), Elasti-woman/Rita Farr (April Bowlby) and Crazy Jane/Kay (Diane Guerrero) are taken in by Chief/Dr. Niles Caulder (Timothy Dalton).
They each have suffered horrible accidents that have left them scarred or disfigured but also imbued them with superpowers. They have come together in Doom Manor under the guidance of Dr. Caulder to try and overcome their own demons. However when the good Dr. leaves the manor, a quick venture into the town for the team has far-reaching consequences. An enemy called Mr. Nobody (Alan Tudyk) comes to exact revenge and takes the doctor and everyone in the town with him. Luckily they are left with a possible new member and old friend of the doctor, who has come to check on the town and him, Cyborg (Jovian Wade) from Titans.
This show is really weird and definitely not for everyone. I didn't have the opportunity to watch the Titans show before this, so I don't know how much it affects it in anyway or if it's in the same vein. I also never read the Doom Patrol comics. It didn't seem to me like there was a clear plot at first but the writers are definitely going for a unique and captivating way of grabbing the audience. It's also rated TV-MA and it feels like they're kind of going for that Deadpool audience and a dark humor comedy feel. That being said it's not terrible, it really grows on you. To me the first episode was kind of hit or miss but by the second episode it really pulls you in. The characters motivations and backgrounds are very unique and emotionally appealing. The general atmosphere of the show was kind of all over the place; I mean it's a little bit drama, a little bit action, sometimes slightly horror and kind of gory and a superhero element on top of all all of it, plus sci-fi.
There is a pretty exclusively entertaining character, the narrator/villain Mr. nobody who is played by Alan Tudyk. He is very funny and charismatic and isn't afraid to break the fourth wall, right away in the beginning of the first episode. I guess it's a pretty good show but not for everyone, I would give it a 7/10.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated You're Next (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Finding a good horror film has been a little like a prompt train over the last few years, they are few and far between. However, 2013 has produced more than its fair share of movies within the genre, with the excellent The Purge, released earlier this year; Insidious 2, which is in cinemas this autumn and of course, the subject of this review; You’re Next. But can this modern horror film deliver the thrills and spills of those of yesteryear?
Relative newcomer Adam Wingard directs this rather formulaic home invasion film with some nice creative touches and a rousing score, borrowing heavily from other similar films like the dire When a Stranger Calls, the excellent The Strangers and the downright ridiculous Black Christmas.
However, what sets You’re Next apart from the pack is in its comic timing. Rather than going for full shock value, the film delivers a comedic edge which is welcome in breaking up the bludgeoning and stabbing, which there is a huge amount of.
The plot is simple, a family gathers at their parents’ large manor house to celebrate an anniversary, only to be taunted and butchered by a group of masked killers intent on ruining the party. There are the usual horror clichés of people being watched from outside, people being crept up on from behind and the gem that is thinking there is someone there and realising it’s just a member of the family, but Wingard keeps it feeling fresh and new throughout.
The acting is generally terrible, as is the case with many horror films, but because the movie never takes itself too seriously, the performances add to the overall effect rather than become an annoyance. One stand-out characterisation is Sharni Vinson as Erin, a larger than life Australian who really comes into her own in the battle between the ever decreasing family and the constant onslaught of the masked murderers.
Whilst not scaling the heights of last year’s Cabin in the Woods, You’re Next really helps show that there is life in a genre which has been inundated with cheap knock-offs, countless sequels and pointless remakes.
It is daft, unoriginal and full of lifeless characters, but as a slice of truly terrifying horror and a piece of laugh out loud dark comedy, it succeeds and is highly recommended.
Relative newcomer Adam Wingard directs this rather formulaic home invasion film with some nice creative touches and a rousing score, borrowing heavily from other similar films like the dire When a Stranger Calls, the excellent The Strangers and the downright ridiculous Black Christmas.
However, what sets You’re Next apart from the pack is in its comic timing. Rather than going for full shock value, the film delivers a comedic edge which is welcome in breaking up the bludgeoning and stabbing, which there is a huge amount of.
The plot is simple, a family gathers at their parents’ large manor house to celebrate an anniversary, only to be taunted and butchered by a group of masked killers intent on ruining the party. There are the usual horror clichés of people being watched from outside, people being crept up on from behind and the gem that is thinking there is someone there and realising it’s just a member of the family, but Wingard keeps it feeling fresh and new throughout.
The acting is generally terrible, as is the case with many horror films, but because the movie never takes itself too seriously, the performances add to the overall effect rather than become an annoyance. One stand-out characterisation is Sharni Vinson as Erin, a larger than life Australian who really comes into her own in the battle between the ever decreasing family and the constant onslaught of the masked murderers.
Whilst not scaling the heights of last year’s Cabin in the Woods, You’re Next really helps show that there is life in a genre which has been inundated with cheap knock-offs, countless sequels and pointless remakes.
It is daft, unoriginal and full of lifeless characters, but as a slice of truly terrifying horror and a piece of laugh out loud dark comedy, it succeeds and is highly recommended.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Frozen II (2019) in Movies
Dec 2, 2019 (Updated Dec 2, 2019)
The Cucumber
Frozen 2 is not only better than Frozen but it also manages to develop its characters futher, delves deeper into its lore and overall tells a tale thats much darker and way more mature. Its apparent from the start of the movie that this sequel has more to say than just being a cheap cash in and as we check in on Elsa we see that although at first everything might seem happy it becomes aparent shes still struggling with demons and troubled on the inside. They clearly are not children anymore and thus dealing with the loss of both their parents is really starting to hit home as they enter the grieving process. This seems to effect Elsa in more ways than she can begin to process and as she struggles to tame her depression and get a hold on her mental health she closes up and alienates the people that are close to her. Its all incredibly dark stuff and at times it became so bleak that it had both adults and children in our screening breaking out in tears. Olaf does lighten things up occasionally however with some genuinely funny comedy, silly facts and some nice philosophy too with a role that feels important this time rather than there for comic relief. Pact with cool mythology and stuning visuals the film also manages to create not only a great coldness but an incredible warmth to really drive home its message of the importance of family and heritage. Elemental effects are extremely impressive too as is the improved animation quality and while the songs arnt as catchy this time they flow with more heart/meaning and with way more creativity visually too. Frozen 2 might not be perfect but as an adult it spoke to me more than the last one did and seeing it have the guts to mature and progress rather than replicate is a bold move I really respected. A truly magical fable full to the brim with lore and mythology that deals with such grown up isuess so respectfully and realistically that it will speak way more this time to adults than it does kids. Frozen 2 successfully teaches us all the message that we dont have to 'let It Go' or deal with our problems alone and by remembering and talking about those that are gone warms the heart and keeps them alive in us.
Big Little Lies
8.6
Rate It
Book
Don't want Big Little Lies to end? Then why not order Liane Moriarty's new hit, Truly Madly...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
EasterBunnyKiller (31 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Saw this before starting my shift the Saturday of opening weekend. I would have rated this higher if it hadn't hurt my fanboy feelings as much as it did, but I am of two minds about this movie.
Visually, it's stunning. The differences in the color palette between the teenage and adult version of the Losers Club and the tunnels beneath the house on Neibolt street was great, just like in the first movie. Andy Muschietti did a great job capturing the frenetic dread during the final conflict with Pennywise. The acting is great. And I'm very pleased at how effective the movie is with horror in the light, instead of relying o the dark for tension.
The dialogue is fun and Bill Hader knocked it out of the park. I enjoyed the departure from the source material in regard to the specifics of the final confrontation, which changed the specifics, but managed the retain the theme and feeling of the book's conclusion.
Now the bad:
At times, It: Chapter Two felt like a high concept comedy starring Bill Hader. Now I understand and appreciate the character of Ritchie and his wisecracking timbre, but at times, it felt a bit much and took me out of the tension of the story.
I wasn't a huge fan of some of the characterisations of the adult versions of the characters. Specifically, Eddie and Mike. For Mike, one would have thought that given the he is the entire reason the the Losers reunite, he would have had some kind of plan better than "get everyone together and hope that's enough." The way he tries to convince them all to stick around and fight It seems contrived, considering that the film very much moves away from the idea of Bill being the leader of the group.
As far as Eddie, I felt like it was a missed opportunity with regard to him facing his fears. In the novel, adult Eddie is still very much ruled by his own fears. It didn't feel like a very big moment for him to overcome his fear in the movie, because there is very little prove-up for his fearfulness as an adult.
There were certain things I wasn't very much of a fan of, like the abbreviated inclusion of Henry Bowers, and the decided lack of a cosmic Turtle, but all in all, it was an enjoyable movie, with a couple of legitimately creepy scenes on it.
Visually, it's stunning. The differences in the color palette between the teenage and adult version of the Losers Club and the tunnels beneath the house on Neibolt street was great, just like in the first movie. Andy Muschietti did a great job capturing the frenetic dread during the final conflict with Pennywise. The acting is great. And I'm very pleased at how effective the movie is with horror in the light, instead of relying o the dark for tension.
The dialogue is fun and Bill Hader knocked it out of the park. I enjoyed the departure from the source material in regard to the specifics of the final confrontation, which changed the specifics, but managed the retain the theme and feeling of the book's conclusion.
Now the bad:
At times, It: Chapter Two felt like a high concept comedy starring Bill Hader. Now I understand and appreciate the character of Ritchie and his wisecracking timbre, but at times, it felt a bit much and took me out of the tension of the story.
I wasn't a huge fan of some of the characterisations of the adult versions of the characters. Specifically, Eddie and Mike. For Mike, one would have thought that given the he is the entire reason the the Losers reunite, he would have had some kind of plan better than "get everyone together and hope that's enough." The way he tries to convince them all to stick around and fight It seems contrived, considering that the film very much moves away from the idea of Bill being the leader of the group.
As far as Eddie, I felt like it was a missed opportunity with regard to him facing his fears. In the novel, adult Eddie is still very much ruled by his own fears. It didn't feel like a very big moment for him to overcome his fear in the movie, because there is very little prove-up for his fearfulness as an adult.
There were certain things I wasn't very much of a fan of, like the abbreviated inclusion of Henry Bowers, and the decided lack of a cosmic Turtle, but all in all, it was an enjoyable movie, with a couple of legitimately creepy scenes on it.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Black Dynamite (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
After his brother is killed, Black Dynamite decides to take matters into his own hands. Just who is Black Dynamite? He's an action legend, a one-man army, and anyone who gets on his bad side is going to wind up dead. Other than struggling with trying to figure out who's responsible for his brother's death, Black Dynamite also has other matters to attend to. There's that new smack being distributed on the street that's even somehow reaching the orphans at the local orphanage and there's something screwy about that Anaconda malt liquor that just doesn't sit well with him. Black Dynamite will do whatever it takes to find out who killed his brother and clean up the streets even if it means going all the way to the Honky House.
Black Dynamite has quite a reputation as just about every article or review that mentioned the film gave it high praise. Is it possible for a film to be incredible while paying homage to the films that inspired it? Sure it is. Directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez make a living doing just that. With Black Dynamite, however, you may not know what to expect. Expect it to parody the blaxploitation films from the 70s, pay homage to classic kung fu films, have ridiculous dialogue, a storyline that hilariously doesn't make sense, and have a funky soundtrack with lyrics that are just as awesome as the rest of the film.
Michael Jai White is really the selling point of the film since he is Black Dynamite and you're with him the entire film. I hadn't seen much of White's work before this, but I'm definitely wanting to see more now. His fight scenes are top notch and from what I could tell, it looked like he did the majority of his own stunts. The word I've been hearing is that he's a fairly impressive actor overall, but has just never really picked the right roles and never really broke into the mainstream. Maybe after playing Gambol in The Dark Knight helped him out a bit because he definitely has a bright future as not only an action star, but an actor as well. Other than his superb martial arts work, White's comedic timing is also really important in a film like this and it really pays off. There's a scene where a boom mic is noticeably in the shot while Black Dynamite is giving a big speech. He draws attention to it by repeatedly glaring at the mic throughout the scene, but doesn't miss a beat of the dialogue. Ridiculous scenes like that were crucial in the overall enjoyment factor of the film.
The dialogue is laugh out loud funny at times. There's a scene where the CIA show up at Black Dynamite's house and Agent O'Leary says to Black Dynamite, "We heard about your brother's death and we don't want you running around turning the streets into rivers of blood." Black Dynamite responds with, "Then tell me who did it and I'll just leave a puddle." The storyline is just as absurd, as well. Other than the film missing scenes that were shown in the trailer and things not fully being resolved with Vincent "The Don" Rafelli, the scene where Black Dynamite and his crew figure out what Anaconda malt liquor's true purpose is is both hilariously long-winded and confusing.
Black Dynamite may not be for everyone, but it will be hilariously awesome for most who actually get to see it. The film somehow manages to blend comedy as absurd and ridiculous as films like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy or Zoolander and have hard hitting action scenes that are noticeably a tribute to classic Bruce Lee films. This blaxploitation parody comes highly recommended, can you dig it?
Black Dynamite has quite a reputation as just about every article or review that mentioned the film gave it high praise. Is it possible for a film to be incredible while paying homage to the films that inspired it? Sure it is. Directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez make a living doing just that. With Black Dynamite, however, you may not know what to expect. Expect it to parody the blaxploitation films from the 70s, pay homage to classic kung fu films, have ridiculous dialogue, a storyline that hilariously doesn't make sense, and have a funky soundtrack with lyrics that are just as awesome as the rest of the film.
Michael Jai White is really the selling point of the film since he is Black Dynamite and you're with him the entire film. I hadn't seen much of White's work before this, but I'm definitely wanting to see more now. His fight scenes are top notch and from what I could tell, it looked like he did the majority of his own stunts. The word I've been hearing is that he's a fairly impressive actor overall, but has just never really picked the right roles and never really broke into the mainstream. Maybe after playing Gambol in The Dark Knight helped him out a bit because he definitely has a bright future as not only an action star, but an actor as well. Other than his superb martial arts work, White's comedic timing is also really important in a film like this and it really pays off. There's a scene where a boom mic is noticeably in the shot while Black Dynamite is giving a big speech. He draws attention to it by repeatedly glaring at the mic throughout the scene, but doesn't miss a beat of the dialogue. Ridiculous scenes like that were crucial in the overall enjoyment factor of the film.
The dialogue is laugh out loud funny at times. There's a scene where the CIA show up at Black Dynamite's house and Agent O'Leary says to Black Dynamite, "We heard about your brother's death and we don't want you running around turning the streets into rivers of blood." Black Dynamite responds with, "Then tell me who did it and I'll just leave a puddle." The storyline is just as absurd, as well. Other than the film missing scenes that were shown in the trailer and things not fully being resolved with Vincent "The Don" Rafelli, the scene where Black Dynamite and his crew figure out what Anaconda malt liquor's true purpose is is both hilariously long-winded and confusing.
Black Dynamite may not be for everyone, but it will be hilariously awesome for most who actually get to see it. The film somehow manages to blend comedy as absurd and ridiculous as films like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy or Zoolander and have hard hitting action scenes that are noticeably a tribute to classic Bruce Lee films. This blaxploitation parody comes highly recommended, can you dig it?