Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Alone For Christmas (2013) in Movies
Dec 15, 2019
UK DVD release title, Bone Alone.
Shopping in Tesco each week involves a traditional visit to the DVD aisle to look for bargains and new releases. At this time of year that also means some quality seasonal content that you've never heard of before... and so I give you, Bone Alone!
When Bone gets in trouble for the antics of his little brother Columbus he's banished to a dogsitter as the family go off for the holidays.
Bone, with the help of the other dogs, makes an escape after he realises his home is in danger. A group of burglars have their sights set on their valuables, but this is Bone's house and he has to defend it.
Its original title was Alone For Christmas, let's face it though, that's just not as good as Bone Alone. Is it a rip off of Home Alone featuring dogs or is it porn... who knows?!
The first thing you will notice about Bone Alone is the absolutely ridiculous effects used to animate the dog's mouths, it's truly awful, but thankfully it's easily forgotten once you get into it because... dare I say it? This film is pretty entertaining.
Add some dogs to a film and you've got me keen, get those dogs to execute a Home Alone plan on some unscrupulous baddies? Sold! Bone does not let his lack of opposable thumbs stop him making his house a fortress that even Kevin would be proud of. Honestly, I don't know how he thought of some of them, I'll be adding them to my own battle plan options shortly.
We've obviously got quality acting from the canine contingent, especially from our lead actors, Hooligan and Torpedo playing Bone and Columbus. Plus there are lots of little cameos from other floofy talents.
The human cast is classic TV movie, acting that's just cheesy enough that the film appears to not take itself too seriously. It's headed up by one of TV's favourite dads, David DeLuise, and as always he's the right sort of amusing to make the role work. The villains have your favourite traits but out of the three of them my favourite was definitely Phil played by John Kenward, he's the adorable buffoon that you really kind of feel for in the whole thing.
Generally the cast isn't made up of people you'd recognise, but then you spot Kevin Sorbo... I don't know what he's channelling when it comes to this role but it's not entirely good. There's a whole section of his story that I zoned out of, that was probably the only part of this masterpiece that I didn't get along with.
Bone Alone is a really fun film because it's equal parts ridiculous and amusing. I can't say there's much in it that's going to make cinematic history but I liked it and that's really all that matters.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/bone-alone-movie-review.html
When Bone gets in trouble for the antics of his little brother Columbus he's banished to a dogsitter as the family go off for the holidays.
Bone, with the help of the other dogs, makes an escape after he realises his home is in danger. A group of burglars have their sights set on their valuables, but this is Bone's house and he has to defend it.
Its original title was Alone For Christmas, let's face it though, that's just not as good as Bone Alone. Is it a rip off of Home Alone featuring dogs or is it porn... who knows?!
The first thing you will notice about Bone Alone is the absolutely ridiculous effects used to animate the dog's mouths, it's truly awful, but thankfully it's easily forgotten once you get into it because... dare I say it? This film is pretty entertaining.
Add some dogs to a film and you've got me keen, get those dogs to execute a Home Alone plan on some unscrupulous baddies? Sold! Bone does not let his lack of opposable thumbs stop him making his house a fortress that even Kevin would be proud of. Honestly, I don't know how he thought of some of them, I'll be adding them to my own battle plan options shortly.
We've obviously got quality acting from the canine contingent, especially from our lead actors, Hooligan and Torpedo playing Bone and Columbus. Plus there are lots of little cameos from other floofy talents.
The human cast is classic TV movie, acting that's just cheesy enough that the film appears to not take itself too seriously. It's headed up by one of TV's favourite dads, David DeLuise, and as always he's the right sort of amusing to make the role work. The villains have your favourite traits but out of the three of them my favourite was definitely Phil played by John Kenward, he's the adorable buffoon that you really kind of feel for in the whole thing.
Generally the cast isn't made up of people you'd recognise, but then you spot Kevin Sorbo... I don't know what he's channelling when it comes to this role but it's not entirely good. There's a whole section of his story that I zoned out of, that was probably the only part of this masterpiece that I didn't get along with.
Bone Alone is a really fun film because it's equal parts ridiculous and amusing. I can't say there's much in it that's going to make cinematic history but I liked it and that's really all that matters.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/bone-alone-movie-review.html
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Favorite Daughter in Books
Jun 21, 2019
A year ago, Jane Harris' daughter, Mary, died tragically. Ever since, Jane has been lost in a cloud of grief and anti-depressants. But with a ceremony celebrating Mary's life coming up, Jane feels it's time for her to reemerge and reengage with her family: husband David and daughter, Betsy, who is about to graduate from high school. The family lives in a gorgeous house in Orange County, California. But Jane quickly realizes that David is always busy--with work or the gym he claims--and Betsy is distant and angry. Jane adored Mary, her eldest, who had finished her first year of college before she died. But at the ceremony for Mary, she receives a note, claiming Mary's death wasn't an accident. Does someone know what happened to her daughter--and are they right? Was Mary's death not an accident?
"After a year of grieving, it's time to step back into my family, or what remains of it and that's precisely my plan."
So this review is going to be a little unpopular, perhaps, based on others I've seen. I'd like to point out that it's not a negative review, per se, just not a gushing review as so many others seem to be. I just felt a little let down by this one; it left me a little flat. I found a lot of the twists predictable and while I found the book a very compelling read, there was just something "off" that didn't make it a "wow" read.
Still, as mentioned, this is a very readable book, and it will keep you engaged. Jane is an interesting character, to say the least, even if I sometimes found her more clueless than diabolical. She is, of course, an unreliable narrator, and we are only allowed to learn things as Jane reveals them to us. As a result, we're left a little confused, never quite sure where we stand. One of the things I liked most about this book was how easy it is to get sucked into Jane's delusional world as the novel is told in a very conversational style, with her sometimes speaking directly to the reader. She's also a pretty terrible person and yet oddly fascinating.
"Without Mary to place my biggest hopes and dreams on, I'm left with Betsy."
Her relationship with her daughters is pretty messed up, to say the least, and as a result, the book can be pretty creepy and bizarre. It's definitely quite a wild ride. Still, I was a little disappointed at how much I figured out ahead of time; I would have liked to have been more surprised.
Overall, this is a quick read and it's pretty intriguing. You'll get caught up in Jane's delusions pretty easily, even if some of them are fairly easily telegraphed. Others really rave about this one, so hopefully you'll enjoy it even more than me. I still recommend it; it's an interesting read. 3 stars.
"After a year of grieving, it's time to step back into my family, or what remains of it and that's precisely my plan."
So this review is going to be a little unpopular, perhaps, based on others I've seen. I'd like to point out that it's not a negative review, per se, just not a gushing review as so many others seem to be. I just felt a little let down by this one; it left me a little flat. I found a lot of the twists predictable and while I found the book a very compelling read, there was just something "off" that didn't make it a "wow" read.
Still, as mentioned, this is a very readable book, and it will keep you engaged. Jane is an interesting character, to say the least, even if I sometimes found her more clueless than diabolical. She is, of course, an unreliable narrator, and we are only allowed to learn things as Jane reveals them to us. As a result, we're left a little confused, never quite sure where we stand. One of the things I liked most about this book was how easy it is to get sucked into Jane's delusional world as the novel is told in a very conversational style, with her sometimes speaking directly to the reader. She's also a pretty terrible person and yet oddly fascinating.
"Without Mary to place my biggest hopes and dreams on, I'm left with Betsy."
Her relationship with her daughters is pretty messed up, to say the least, and as a result, the book can be pretty creepy and bizarre. It's definitely quite a wild ride. Still, I was a little disappointed at how much I figured out ahead of time; I would have liked to have been more surprised.
Overall, this is a quick read and it's pretty intriguing. You'll get caught up in Jane's delusions pretty easily, even if some of them are fairly easily telegraphed. Others really rave about this one, so hopefully you'll enjoy it even more than me. I still recommend it; it's an interesting read. 3 stars.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Road House (1989) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Very underrated
Contains spoilers, click to show
So what kind of film do you get when you have great one liners, bar fights, guns, knives, egos, strippers, blues music, a polar bear and a monster truck? You get one of the most enjoyable and entertaining films of the late 80's, Road House. The film follows James Dalton (Patrick Swayze) a cooler (bouncer) and the best in the business, as he takes employment with Frank Tilghman (Kevin Tighe) the owner of the Double Deuce in Jasper, Missouri. The bar is the roughest in town and he needs Dalton to clean it up. However corrupt business man and crime boss Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara) stands in his way. After the classic "chick flick" Dirty Dancing, Patrick Swayze was Hollywood gold. Women loved him and men wanted to be him. The film was full of romance. Then along came Road House, a complete opposite to Dirty Dancing, a little romance and loads of action. The film has a great cast including Patrick Swayze, Kevin Tighe, Ben Gazzara, Kelly Lynch, Marshall R. Teague, Red West, Kathleen Wilhoite, John William Young, John Doe, Kurt James Stefka, Keith David & Terry Funk. The cast works well together and it is full of great performances. Naturally Patrick Swayze at the height of his career stands miles apart from the rest of the cast as Dalton. A character that can hurt you with his words just as much as his fists. Tragically, 20 years later Swayze had his life cut short by cancer. His death is still a major loss to the entertainment industry, but his legacy will live on in the great performances and memorable characters he played. The film also a features a great performance by the late great blues guitarist Jeff Healey as Cody. It's the music in the film that goes a long way to achieving the right feel for the film. Everything works well from the characters, the music to the setting. Set in a rural area the scenery is breath-taking and it is used to great effect. But it's the fight choreography that stands out from many other films. Great bar fights are pretty much a thing of the past, but here they are full of action and humour just like the classic westerns. The one on one fights are brutal, mainly for the realism they portray. The script is awesome and full of classic lines mainly from Dalton and although many are cheesy, when he says it, it feels right. The director surprisingly hasn't made many films but the ones I have seen of his I really like and I know I am in the minority. See my review of Gladiator (1992) for more by this director. This is truly a great film, although very underrated. It is also one of my personal all-time favourites. There are a couple of versions of this so ensure that you see the USA or UK version released after 2002 as these are the uncut editions. So grab a few beers and a few friends, but this on a big screen and turn the sound way up for a really great movie experience.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Fly (1958) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
As the wife (Patricia Owens) of "murdered" scientist played by Al (David) Hedison, is maniacally hunting for a fly with a white head, both the police and his brother (Vincent Price) are trying to uncover the truth behind his death, which seems by all accounts to be the work of his wife.
But as she recounts the tale of how they both ended up embroiled in the hydraulic press, one under it and one at the controls, the plot thickens and a Sci Fi classic is born. Hedison's scientist has invented the teleporter and during one of his human tests on himself, a fly enters the chamber with him and the pair are fused: The fly's head and left arm are now a part of Hedison, whilst his head and arm are buzzing around as part of a common house fly.
The film makes an effort to offer some real science, though be it toned down and simplified by today's standards, but it is easy to feel that this is a naive movie at face value, if you forget that in 1958, teleportation was a fantastical concept, but mid 60's science fiction such as Star Trek would make this much more matter of fact and play around with science more freely.
But by the time of the remake in 1986, David Cronenberg was gifted with an audience who understood these ideas and offered a more comprehensive take on what might have happened, in this case, gene splicing and DNA replication, with the cells using the corrupted hybrid DNA code as a basic every time the cells replicate, a process which would eventually turn Jeff Goldblum's man in to a man/fly hybrid monster!
But here, whilst almost all of this is present, it is simplified for an audience unprepared and unarmed with the scientific knowledge with would be more common in the 1980's, thanks to films like this. Here, Hedison's man/fly is changing mentally into a fly the longer he has the mutation, leading him to commit assisted suicide in order to prevent his work from been replicated, fearing the consequences.
This is ground breaking stuff. A Sci-Fi classic which spends most of its running time building an intriguing, intelligent suspenseful thriller, with little time given over to the eponymous Fly itself, but it is omnipresent, chilling as is the reveal of the scientist's deformation in the final act, the change in personality and loving relationship with his tragic wife.
And that penultimate scene in which the white-headed fly is revealed to us with Hedison's head and arm as it/he is about to be devoured by a spider in his web, must be one of the most chilling scene's of the genre. Simple, effective and not for the special effects or gore, but for the concept, one which leaves you thinking and considering what you have just witnessed.
What would you do if you saw a fly with a human head? A human with a fly's head? Creepy...
But as she recounts the tale of how they both ended up embroiled in the hydraulic press, one under it and one at the controls, the plot thickens and a Sci Fi classic is born. Hedison's scientist has invented the teleporter and during one of his human tests on himself, a fly enters the chamber with him and the pair are fused: The fly's head and left arm are now a part of Hedison, whilst his head and arm are buzzing around as part of a common house fly.
The film makes an effort to offer some real science, though be it toned down and simplified by today's standards, but it is easy to feel that this is a naive movie at face value, if you forget that in 1958, teleportation was a fantastical concept, but mid 60's science fiction such as Star Trek would make this much more matter of fact and play around with science more freely.
But by the time of the remake in 1986, David Cronenberg was gifted with an audience who understood these ideas and offered a more comprehensive take on what might have happened, in this case, gene splicing and DNA replication, with the cells using the corrupted hybrid DNA code as a basic every time the cells replicate, a process which would eventually turn Jeff Goldblum's man in to a man/fly hybrid monster!
But here, whilst almost all of this is present, it is simplified for an audience unprepared and unarmed with the scientific knowledge with would be more common in the 1980's, thanks to films like this. Here, Hedison's man/fly is changing mentally into a fly the longer he has the mutation, leading him to commit assisted suicide in order to prevent his work from been replicated, fearing the consequences.
This is ground breaking stuff. A Sci-Fi classic which spends most of its running time building an intriguing, intelligent suspenseful thriller, with little time given over to the eponymous Fly itself, but it is omnipresent, chilling as is the reveal of the scientist's deformation in the final act, the change in personality and loving relationship with his tragic wife.
And that penultimate scene in which the white-headed fly is revealed to us with Hedison's head and arm as it/he is about to be devoured by a spider in his web, must be one of the most chilling scene's of the genre. Simple, effective and not for the special effects or gore, but for the concept, one which leaves you thinking and considering what you have just witnessed.
What would you do if you saw a fly with a human head? A human with a fly's head? Creepy...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Dark Waters (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Dark Waters, the screenplay developed from the New York Times Magazine article: The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare. The article tells of Robert Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate environmental lawyer, who headed the years long battle against DuPont in one of the landmark cases that held the company accountable for their actions.
Bilott, is visited by a farmer, Wilbur Tennant (Jim Azelvandre), who was an acquaintance of his Grandmother. As a child, he visited her home in West Virginia during the summers and had fond memories of that farm. Robert, having worked with DuPont on many cases, felt confident that he would be able to sort out the situation for Tennant. What he does not realize until he visits Wilbur’s farm is that the situation is more dire than he had known.
Wilbur had arrived with multiple VHS tapes recording the various issues that were happening to his farm animals. Bilott witnesses the mass graves that littered Tennant’s farm from his herd that had died from various illnesses. Wilbur is convinced that the reason is the dump that DuPont has created next to his property.
Mark Ruffalo’s portrayal of Bilott is an exercise in subtlety. He becomes more purpose driven once his investigation and research in the information that DuPont had sent due to discovery. Anne Hathaway plays Sarah Bilott, Robert’s wife and steadfast partner. Over the years, Sarah had been supportive, however as the case drags on and Rob’s pay gets cut repeatedly, the strain begins to show.
This film has a stellar cast. From Tim Robbins, as Tom Terp, the managing partner at the firm, Victor Garber as DuPont’s in-house counsel. Mare Winningham as Darlene Kiger, a lead plaintiff in the class action suit and Bill Pullman as Harry Dietzler, lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
This movie has the quality that awards season loves. It is a David vs. Goliath, under dog wins story. Mark Ruffalo does a great portrayal of a man who initially does not want to pursue the case, then shifts to the defender of the people.
This movie is along the lines of Erin Brockovich and Norma Rae.
4.5 out of 5 Stars
Bilott, is visited by a farmer, Wilbur Tennant (Jim Azelvandre), who was an acquaintance of his Grandmother. As a child, he visited her home in West Virginia during the summers and had fond memories of that farm. Robert, having worked with DuPont on many cases, felt confident that he would be able to sort out the situation for Tennant. What he does not realize until he visits Wilbur’s farm is that the situation is more dire than he had known.
Wilbur had arrived with multiple VHS tapes recording the various issues that were happening to his farm animals. Bilott witnesses the mass graves that littered Tennant’s farm from his herd that had died from various illnesses. Wilbur is convinced that the reason is the dump that DuPont has created next to his property.
Mark Ruffalo’s portrayal of Bilott is an exercise in subtlety. He becomes more purpose driven once his investigation and research in the information that DuPont had sent due to discovery. Anne Hathaway plays Sarah Bilott, Robert’s wife and steadfast partner. Over the years, Sarah had been supportive, however as the case drags on and Rob’s pay gets cut repeatedly, the strain begins to show.
This film has a stellar cast. From Tim Robbins, as Tom Terp, the managing partner at the firm, Victor Garber as DuPont’s in-house counsel. Mare Winningham as Darlene Kiger, a lead plaintiff in the class action suit and Bill Pullman as Harry Dietzler, lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
This movie has the quality that awards season loves. It is a David vs. Goliath, under dog wins story. Mark Ruffalo does a great portrayal of a man who initially does not want to pursue the case, then shifts to the defender of the people.
This movie is along the lines of Erin Brockovich and Norma Rae.
4.5 out of 5 Stars
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tolkien (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
An Unexpectedly Dull Journey
Tolkien is a 2019 biographical/drama movie directed by Dome Karukoski and written by David Gleeson and Stephen Beresford. It's produced by Fox Searchlight Pictures and Chernin Entertainment and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Nicholas Hoult, Lily Collins, Colm Meaney, and Derek Jacobi.
As a young boy living in the countryside, J.R.R. Tolkien, learns multiple languages and how to read and write with his younger brother as they are taught by their mother. They are forced to move to the city so their mother can better provide for them when unfortunate events have them taken in by the Church and and stay at a boarding house. This is where, as a young student at King Edward's School, among a group of fellow outcasts, he finds friendship, love, and artistic inspiration. But his friends and their new brotherhood must endure the ups and downs of his position in society, his relationship with the love of his life Edith Bratt and later the outbreak of World War I.
I was really excited for this movie and having my hopes up and expectations might be the reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For one I don't normally watch autobiographies but I have seen more that I liked in comparison to this film. I guess I thought they would show more about him coming up with the ideas for his books, which they showed very little of. Instead it was about the important events of his life which I guess is what biographies should do. For some reason though I felt like the storytelling dragged and it didn't do enough to keep you interested, very lackluster. I found that the story, acting, and dialogue were all well done but the movie suffered from the direction they went with and how they chose to show it. One thing I really liked was there were several instances where you could see what influenced him when he wrote the Lord of The Rings" books. It's an entertaining film with flair and ambition that teems with on the nose moments but is hindered by the usual biopic framework. I believe the quote from Rotten Tomatoes says it best, "Tolkien Has the period trappings and strong performances of a worthy biopic, but lacks the imagination required to truly do it's subject justice". I give it a 6/10.
As a young boy living in the countryside, J.R.R. Tolkien, learns multiple languages and how to read and write with his younger brother as they are taught by their mother. They are forced to move to the city so their mother can better provide for them when unfortunate events have them taken in by the Church and and stay at a boarding house. This is where, as a young student at King Edward's School, among a group of fellow outcasts, he finds friendship, love, and artistic inspiration. But his friends and their new brotherhood must endure the ups and downs of his position in society, his relationship with the love of his life Edith Bratt and later the outbreak of World War I.
I was really excited for this movie and having my hopes up and expectations might be the reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For one I don't normally watch autobiographies but I have seen more that I liked in comparison to this film. I guess I thought they would show more about him coming up with the ideas for his books, which they showed very little of. Instead it was about the important events of his life which I guess is what biographies should do. For some reason though I felt like the storytelling dragged and it didn't do enough to keep you interested, very lackluster. I found that the story, acting, and dialogue were all well done but the movie suffered from the direction they went with and how they chose to show it. One thing I really liked was there were several instances where you could see what influenced him when he wrote the Lord of The Rings" books. It's an entertaining film with flair and ambition that teems with on the nose moments but is hindered by the usual biopic framework. I believe the quote from Rotten Tomatoes says it best, "Tolkien Has the period trappings and strong performances of a worthy biopic, but lacks the imagination required to truly do it's subject justice". I give it a 6/10.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Invitation (2015) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Will is the grieving former husband of Eden that attends a party hosted by his ex-wife which brings back the memories of his son, but he starts becoming paranoid about the reason for the party, he is the only one that thinks something strange is happening. Kira is Will’s new girlfriend that gets to meet his old friends at this party, she tries to be social even when his paranoia doesn’t help her get the welcome she desires. Eden is the host of the part, the ex-wife of Will’s that seems to have turned over a new leaf by joining the cult that she starts to recruit for with her new partner David.
Performance – Logan Marshall-Green does a good job here because one moment in the film he is calm, then paranoid, then emotional and back to normal, this performance shows us a full range he must go through. Emayatzy is also good as the unknown element at the party. With Tammy Blanchard being the unhinged but at times calm host of the party.
Story – The story circles around a party being held for old friends as the host has reinvented herself after the loss of her son, everything seems strange through the night until we learn about the cult she has become part of and wants the friends to become part of it but one man gets paranoid about what is happening during the night. It is easy to follow and you do spend most of the film waiting to see where it all ends up going which is rewarding by the end.
Horror/Mystery – The horror of this film comes from the idea that the characters are being recruited for a cult, while the mystery side of everything leaves us to figure out just what has been happening.
Settings – The film takes place in one house that shows how a dinner party can turn sour as everything it not quite right.
Scene of the Movie – Not the drinks.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is a slow build up that does seem to give too many supporting characters screen time they don’t need.
Final Thoughts – This is a good horror film, it does take time to build to the final act which is built through the tension that goes through the whole film.
Overall: Good horror that you get rewarded with by the end.
Performance – Logan Marshall-Green does a good job here because one moment in the film he is calm, then paranoid, then emotional and back to normal, this performance shows us a full range he must go through. Emayatzy is also good as the unknown element at the party. With Tammy Blanchard being the unhinged but at times calm host of the party.
Story – The story circles around a party being held for old friends as the host has reinvented herself after the loss of her son, everything seems strange through the night until we learn about the cult she has become part of and wants the friends to become part of it but one man gets paranoid about what is happening during the night. It is easy to follow and you do spend most of the film waiting to see where it all ends up going which is rewarding by the end.
Horror/Mystery – The horror of this film comes from the idea that the characters are being recruited for a cult, while the mystery side of everything leaves us to figure out just what has been happening.
Settings – The film takes place in one house that shows how a dinner party can turn sour as everything it not quite right.
Scene of the Movie – Not the drinks.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is a slow build up that does seem to give too many supporting characters screen time they don’t need.
Final Thoughts – This is a good horror film, it does take time to build to the final act which is built through the tension that goes through the whole film.
Overall: Good horror that you get rewarded with by the end.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Magic of Terry Pratchett in Books
May 27, 2020
As a child who was brought up in a house of Discworld stories, with a stepfather who (still) proudly displays the Clarecraft Rincewind figurine which bears an uncanny likeness to him, and a mother who has a matching Nanny Ogg (it bears no likeness but let’s just say encompasses a couple of her characteristics), this was an ARC that I was frankly desperate to read. I have to thank Netgalley and Marc Burrows for granting me this opportunity. My opinions are enthusiastic, and entirely my own.
As a 32 year old female, mother and accountant you may be forgiven for expecting my book reviews to be based around chick-lit or classical novels and, although it is the case that I own several very well-read copies of Pride & Prejudice, I am wholly a child of the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Terry Pratchett novels sit alongside George RR Martin, Terry Brooks, David Eddings and Ursula Le Guin in my house; I owned and loved Discworld computer games and probably know every word to the film Labyrinth.
It could therefore be said that I would find Marc Burrow’s biography fascinating regardless: however, I am ashamed to say that, before reading this book, I knew very little about the life of the author whose books I admire so much.
Burrows structures his writing predictably enough, running through the life of Terry Pratchett chronologically, from his working-class upbringing; his career in journalism; the progression in popularity of his novels; his knighthood all the way up to his untimely death from Alzheimer’s. However, this is where an affiliation to any standard biography ends.
It is immediately apparent that Marc Burrows is an avid Terry Pratchett fan, even without reading his foreword, due to the inclusion of footnotes: a writing style which is synonymous with Pratchett. This allows Burrows, as it did with Pratchett, to provide little notes and details which cannot be in the main text without limiting the reading experience. It also allows both authors to inject a large amount of humour into their writing.
It should also be mentioned that no book has gripped me from the introduction in a long time, although I am fairly sure no other book would use the word “crotch” before we even reach Chapter One!
‘The Magic of Terry Pratchett’ is a clever, well-informed biography which perfectly encompasses the humour of the Discworld creator whilst educating the reader of his journey to becoming the icon that he is today. I have no doubt that this has been a labour of love for Marc Burrows: when the kindle says you have 20 minutes reading time left and you have reached the bibliography, you know that a whole lot of research has been done!
Sir Terry also had the tendency to embellish his stories and this is a factor Burrows does not try to hide; highlighting when facts don't quite add up and almost analysing the situation to try and discern the truth. This was such a refreshing approach to a biography: the wool is not pulled over the eyes of the reader, nor the subject blindly believed for convenience.
It is important to note that this book transgresses the existence of Discworld and “the business with the elephant” and encompasses all of Sir Terry’s work: from short stories in the local paper to his TV documentary on assisted death.
The reader will also learn of the involvement of Rhianna Pratchett in her father’s work and discover that the “man in the hat” was not always the easiest man to work with.
I am going to need at least 3 copies upon release- can we preorder?
As a 32 year old female, mother and accountant you may be forgiven for expecting my book reviews to be based around chick-lit or classical novels and, although it is the case that I own several very well-read copies of Pride & Prejudice, I am wholly a child of the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Terry Pratchett novels sit alongside George RR Martin, Terry Brooks, David Eddings and Ursula Le Guin in my house; I owned and loved Discworld computer games and probably know every word to the film Labyrinth.
It could therefore be said that I would find Marc Burrow’s biography fascinating regardless: however, I am ashamed to say that, before reading this book, I knew very little about the life of the author whose books I admire so much.
Burrows structures his writing predictably enough, running through the life of Terry Pratchett chronologically, from his working-class upbringing; his career in journalism; the progression in popularity of his novels; his knighthood all the way up to his untimely death from Alzheimer’s. However, this is where an affiliation to any standard biography ends.
It is immediately apparent that Marc Burrows is an avid Terry Pratchett fan, even without reading his foreword, due to the inclusion of footnotes: a writing style which is synonymous with Pratchett. This allows Burrows, as it did with Pratchett, to provide little notes and details which cannot be in the main text without limiting the reading experience. It also allows both authors to inject a large amount of humour into their writing.
It should also be mentioned that no book has gripped me from the introduction in a long time, although I am fairly sure no other book would use the word “crotch” before we even reach Chapter One!
‘The Magic of Terry Pratchett’ is a clever, well-informed biography which perfectly encompasses the humour of the Discworld creator whilst educating the reader of his journey to becoming the icon that he is today. I have no doubt that this has been a labour of love for Marc Burrows: when the kindle says you have 20 minutes reading time left and you have reached the bibliography, you know that a whole lot of research has been done!
Sir Terry also had the tendency to embellish his stories and this is a factor Burrows does not try to hide; highlighting when facts don't quite add up and almost analysing the situation to try and discern the truth. This was such a refreshing approach to a biography: the wool is not pulled over the eyes of the reader, nor the subject blindly believed for convenience.
It is important to note that this book transgresses the existence of Discworld and “the business with the elephant” and encompasses all of Sir Terry’s work: from short stories in the local paper to his TV documentary on assisted death.
The reader will also learn of the involvement of Rhianna Pratchett in her father’s work and discover that the “man in the hat” was not always the easiest man to work with.
I am going to need at least 3 copies upon release- can we preorder?