Search
Search results
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated The Book of Kings in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – The Book of Kings Has a Few Gems and a Few Warts
Contains spoilers, click to show
Unlike other short story anthologies I could mention, this one wasn’t mostly horrible. Instead, the stories inside run the gamut from stupid to brilliant and from annoying to nothing special to fun and memorable. A little something for everyone, then.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.
So since I can’t review it with one blanket sentiment, let’s instead take a quick look at a handful of the 20 all-original stories inside. The following are the tales that most stood out to me during my reading, for better or worse.
“The Kiss” by Alan Dean Foster – A woman walking through a snowy city finds a frog who says he’s a prince, so she kisses him. He turns into a guy and stabs her to death.
Oh boy, we’re not off to a great start here. This story could have been told in a page or so and been an interesting twist on the old tale, but instead the author drew it out over three pages by choosing the absolute most pretentious choice of words for every damn sentence. The guy doesn’t stab the woman, his “knife describes a Gothic arc.” She doesn’t shout or whisper or ask what’s going on, she “expels a querrelous trauma.” It’s not snowing on her face, “trifles of ice as beautiful as they were capricious tickled her exposed cheeks, only to be turned into simulacra of tears as they were instantly metamorphosed by the bundled furnace of her body.”
Yes, really.
The sheer purpleness of this prose might be excused for a deliberately lofty and overwrought tale, but it absolutely does not fit a story about a girl getting shanked by a frog on the street. If the contrast between what’s happening and how it’s presented is supposed to seem absolutely ridiculous, then it’s a success. This reads more like a writing exercise for seeing how unbearably melodramatic you can tell a simple story that the author went ahead and published anyway. I only read it last night as of the time of this particular bit of review, but I still have a headache.
“Divine Right” by Nancy Holder – A king grieving for his recently passed daughter and only heir tries to figure out how to keep his legacy from dying out and eventually decides on a way to choose a successor, sealing his decision by making a pact with God.
I really liked this one, partly for the great characterization of the king via his priorities. He’s not a bastion of righteousness or a tyrannical despot. He might be a pretty decent ruler, or he might not, depending on your priorities and the angle from which you view him. Mostly he’s written to be believable for his position and time period, pride and failings and all.
But what really sealed this story for me was the ironic bent of the plot that I can’t really discuss in any more depth without spoiling it except to say that it definitely fit with the tone and left an appropriate message. So let’s just give it a thumbs up and leave it at that.
“In the Name of the King” by Judith Tarr – If you know the story of Hatshepsut, an Egyptian queen who ruled as Pharaoh, then this is an extra interesting story. It follows both Hatshepsut and her lover in the afterlife and the legacy they’re leaving behind after their deaths, in which they take a surprisingly active interest for dead people.
If you know your history, though, you know where this is going, and it’s very touching as it gets there. It’s also character-centric in a way that makes its dead cast members seem very much alive. This one’s a good contender for my favorite story in the whole anthology.
“Please to See the King” by Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald – A small glimpse of about one evening each into the lives of two seemingly unrelated, seemingly unimportant men against the backdrop of the battles being fought over a vague and distant rebellion against a vague and distant crown.
To say more would be to spoil the story, which is short, sweet, and interesting. It gives you just enough details, and no more, that you can piece together a much deeper story with room left for speculation about who certain characters really were and what exactly just happened. I’ve spent more time thinking about how the ending may be interpreted than it took me to read it, which is a good sign of nuance done right.
“The Name of a King” by Diana L. Paxson – This’n c’n rightf’ly b’ put in w’ th’ other st’ries I woul’n’t oth’rwise b’ther t’ mention ‘cept fer th’ o’erwrought dialectic style o’ nearly all o’ th’ dialogue, whut c’n git on yer nerves right quick-like whene’er any’ne op’ns their mouths. An’ while I’m ‘ere, th’ settin’ w’s rife wi’ plen’y o’ hints at deeper d’tails whut was ne’er sufficien’ly delved into or whut impact’d th’ actu’l plot much. Felt like part o’ a fant’sy series whut I was ‘spected t’ b’ f’miliar wit’ but wasn’t, an’ whut di’n’t give me ’nuff t’ git f’miliar wit’ just fr’m this st’ry.
Oth’rwise, t’w’sn’t t’ b’d, I s’pose. Bit borin’.
“Coda: Working Stiff” by Mike Resnick and Nicholas A. DiChario – This one was just fun. Again trying not to give away any twists or revelations, this one follows a journalist interviewing a bus driver who used to be a big, famous king back in his heyday but is now content (or so he says) with his obscure life of working a simple job in the day and drinking in his spartan home at night.
Who this ex-king really is probably isn’t who you think it’s gonna be at first, but the story does still technically, and cheekily, fit in with the premise of the book overall. It reminds me very much of something Neil Gaiman might have written, or maybe Terry Pratchett if he’d decided to tackle the kingly premise from a more modern and realistic approach.
There are still 14 stories left in here, many of which are also good reads, or at least decent. In fact, looking back through it again, the only real dud that stands out to me is “The Kiss.” The weakest of what’s left are either adaptations of stories that didn’t really do it for me (“The Tale of Lady Ashburn” by John Gregory Betancourt) or weird original works that weren’t really memorable in what they set out to do (“A Parker House Roll” by Dean Wesley Smith).
Overall, The Book of Kings is a fun and interesting romp through a number of royal worlds, themes, and tones. As such, anyone who gives it a look will probably have the same general sentiment I did at the end, with a few things to like and a few to point to as examples of what doesn’t work for them. Me, I got a bit of the inspiration I was looking for and a few memorable tales out of it, so I’ll forgive the warts.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Those Who Wish Me Dead (2021) in Movies
May 20, 2021
Those Who Wish Me Dead is a pretty solid, if straightforward thriller that hugely benefits from it's top class cast.
Angelina Jolie is always a pleasure, whether she's starring in big dumb action movies, or award baiting material. Her character is someone we've seen countless times before - a no nonsense badass with a tragic backstory who gets a shot at redemption - but she does it predictably well.
Jon Bernthal is great as usual, as is Nicholas Hoult. Aidan Gillen also stars, and makes for a suitably nasty piece of shit. Medina Senghore gets my vote for best "pregnant lady you absolutely wouldn't fuck with". This ensemble cast elevates TWWMD above it's standard thriller trappings, with an excellent Finn Little at the centre of it all.
The firewatch/smoke jumper setting is also a huge positive. It makes for some hugely entertaining set pieces, and a plethora of gorgeous vista shots.
My main criticism is the pacing. When things finally kick off, it's pretty unrelenting, but it takes a while to get there, forcing us to spend a little too much time with unlikable douchey side characters, and the climactic scene almost feels like a mid-runtime moment. It definitely felt like there should have been more.
Overall though, TWWMD is a competent and easily watchable thriller from the unquestionably talented Taylor Sheridan, and was a great choice for my first cinema trip of 2021 (so good to be back!)
Angelina Jolie is always a pleasure, whether she's starring in big dumb action movies, or award baiting material. Her character is someone we've seen countless times before - a no nonsense badass with a tragic backstory who gets a shot at redemption - but she does it predictably well.
Jon Bernthal is great as usual, as is Nicholas Hoult. Aidan Gillen also stars, and makes for a suitably nasty piece of shit. Medina Senghore gets my vote for best "pregnant lady you absolutely wouldn't fuck with". This ensemble cast elevates TWWMD above it's standard thriller trappings, with an excellent Finn Little at the centre of it all.
The firewatch/smoke jumper setting is also a huge positive. It makes for some hugely entertaining set pieces, and a plethora of gorgeous vista shots.
My main criticism is the pacing. When things finally kick off, it's pretty unrelenting, but it takes a while to get there, forcing us to spend a little too much time with unlikable douchey side characters, and the climactic scene almost feels like a mid-runtime moment. It definitely felt like there should have been more.
Overall though, TWWMD is a competent and easily watchable thriller from the unquestionably talented Taylor Sheridan, and was a great choice for my first cinema trip of 2021 (so good to be back!)
Tales from a Galaxy Far, Far Away, Vol 1: Aliens
6.5
Rate It
Book
The worlds of Star Wars are full of countless alien species, each stranger and more fascinating than...
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2357 KP) rated A Quiet Undertaking in Books
Jan 27, 2022 (Updated Jan 27, 2022)
Scandal in Flat Skunk
Deaf reporter Connor Westphal is hot on the trail of another scandal in her small Gold Country town for her weekly newspaper. A storage locker full of human ashes has been found near the town of Flat Skunk, California. The ashes were supposed to be scattered at sea by Jasper Coyne, but before anyone can question Jasper, he is found dead near his houseboat. With the scandal impacting Connor’s friend, Del Rey, Connor has an extra motive to investigate. But with Del Rey hiding secrets of her own, will Connor ever figure out what really happened?
This was an inventive mystery that kept me guessing until the end. There were plenty of surprises on the way to the logical climax. Unfortunately, Connor did make some pretty stupid moves as she was investigating, which is a bummer since I like her overall. She leads a strong cast of fun characters. I love how her deafness is worked into the book and how it makes certain scenes even more suspenseful. There are more four letter words than usual in a cozy mystery, so know that going in. The book was first released over 20 years ago, so some of the technology is dated, but keep that in mind as you read it, and you’ll be fine. Overall, this was another fun, confusing mystery. I’m glad I’m finally reading this series.
This was an inventive mystery that kept me guessing until the end. There were plenty of surprises on the way to the logical climax. Unfortunately, Connor did make some pretty stupid moves as she was investigating, which is a bummer since I like her overall. She leads a strong cast of fun characters. I love how her deafness is worked into the book and how it makes certain scenes even more suspenseful. There are more four letter words than usual in a cozy mystery, so know that going in. The book was first released over 20 years ago, so some of the technology is dated, but keep that in mind as you read it, and you’ll be fine. Overall, this was another fun, confusing mystery. I’m glad I’m finally reading this series.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Before you read this review of Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, I just want you to know that I can’t stand this franchise. I gave up keeping up with them after Furious 7 and felt like the Fast & Furious franchise peaked/was tolerable around Fast Five and never really went anywhere worthwhile before or since. I have not seen all the films and really only seemed to watch every other entry, but whether you’re in a heist or a drag race that lethal dose of masculinity being projectile vomited all over you by an entire cast (women included) for two hours straight is dull and tiresome. In fact, just call this franchise “Dull & Tiresome” from here on out and I doubt anyone would notice. It’s even got “tire” in there for car…stuff.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Becs (244 KP) rated Silent Lee and the Adventure of the Side Door Key in Books
May 30, 2019
Story Development (2 more)
Character Development
Plot was amazing
Cute and simple read!
My rating: ☆☆☆☆☆
Review:
I received Silent Lee and the Adventure of the Side Door Key by Alex Hiam from Smith Publicity to read and review for my honest opinion. Since this novel has such a long title, I will be shortening it to just Silent Lee.
Silent Lee is about a young girl about the age of fourteen named Silent Lee, (she prefers Sie). Sie has been living in the Side Door world majority of her life.
A note on the Side Door world and the Front Door world:
Side Door world - the magical world that you can only enter through the side door of a house. You must have the special key in order to activate this world. Not all side doors are a part of the Side Door world. If there is a side door that doesn't have an exit, then you're in luck!
Front Door world - the modern world that you enter via the front door, back door, or windows. This is the world that Raahi lives in along with Sie's mother.
One day, Sie's mother takes Sie away from her Auntie Gen's. Then, before Sie realizes, Auntie Gen dies (or so we think). The story continues to follow Sie as she gets dropped off at her cousins house, who eventually leave her for summer vacation, and Raahi entering Sie's life. Sie gets a note from her Auntie Gen and she begins questioning what it could mean and whether her Aunt is actually dead. So, being the curious soul that she is, she follows the note as best as she can. Raahi is by her side throughout the entirety of the story and even to the very ending when they find and rescue Auntie Gen from being held captive by Sie's mother who is a CIA agent.
This was a fast-paced, middle grade novel that will keep your attention until the very end. I can't wait to read more of Sie's story!
Characters:
Silent Lee (Sie) - the protagonist, fourteen years old and a witch who travels from the Side Door world and the Front Door world. Mixed ethnicity - African American and European.
Raahi - a minor protagonist who befriends Sie because he has a crush on her. Same age as Sie and follows her throughout the story. Indian ethnicity.
Auntie Gen - Sie's aunt who is originally presumed dead, but was actually held captive by the CIA and Sie's mother. Also a witch and the holder of the Side Door key until she gives it to Sie.
Agent Lee - Sie's adoptive mother, may not actually be a part of the Side Door world at all. She tries to steal the power within the Side Door world to bring back into the Front Door world.
Mr. Vose - art gallery owner who helps Sie and Raahi.
The Custodian - balance keeper of the Front Door world, helps Sie and Raahi in a time of need.
Reasons why I rated it 5 stars:
1. The plot:
The plot was very driven and I did not find any plot holes. The story was written in a very high level for a middle grade novel and I truly enjoyed it.
2. My enjoyment:
I loved Silent Lee and the Adventure of the Side Door Key so much!
3. Character and story development:
Man oh man! There was a ton of background and development for both the characters and the story!! I was really blown away as there was more then the average young adult novel.
4. Grammar and spelling:
I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors and Silent Lee was very well-written.
5. The overall story:
This was such an adorable story! I really loved the modern and historical balance that the author created while also adding a bit of magic into the story.
"Bookworms ate books - they didn't read them. And what was wrong with reading, anyway?"
Review:
I received Silent Lee and the Adventure of the Side Door Key by Alex Hiam from Smith Publicity to read and review for my honest opinion. Since this novel has such a long title, I will be shortening it to just Silent Lee.
Silent Lee is about a young girl about the age of fourteen named Silent Lee, (she prefers Sie). Sie has been living in the Side Door world majority of her life.
A note on the Side Door world and the Front Door world:
Side Door world - the magical world that you can only enter through the side door of a house. You must have the special key in order to activate this world. Not all side doors are a part of the Side Door world. If there is a side door that doesn't have an exit, then you're in luck!
Front Door world - the modern world that you enter via the front door, back door, or windows. This is the world that Raahi lives in along with Sie's mother.
One day, Sie's mother takes Sie away from her Auntie Gen's. Then, before Sie realizes, Auntie Gen dies (or so we think). The story continues to follow Sie as she gets dropped off at her cousins house, who eventually leave her for summer vacation, and Raahi entering Sie's life. Sie gets a note from her Auntie Gen and she begins questioning what it could mean and whether her Aunt is actually dead. So, being the curious soul that she is, she follows the note as best as she can. Raahi is by her side throughout the entirety of the story and even to the very ending when they find and rescue Auntie Gen from being held captive by Sie's mother who is a CIA agent.
This was a fast-paced, middle grade novel that will keep your attention until the very end. I can't wait to read more of Sie's story!
Characters:
Silent Lee (Sie) - the protagonist, fourteen years old and a witch who travels from the Side Door world and the Front Door world. Mixed ethnicity - African American and European.
Raahi - a minor protagonist who befriends Sie because he has a crush on her. Same age as Sie and follows her throughout the story. Indian ethnicity.
Auntie Gen - Sie's aunt who is originally presumed dead, but was actually held captive by the CIA and Sie's mother. Also a witch and the holder of the Side Door key until she gives it to Sie.
Agent Lee - Sie's adoptive mother, may not actually be a part of the Side Door world at all. She tries to steal the power within the Side Door world to bring back into the Front Door world.
Mr. Vose - art gallery owner who helps Sie and Raahi.
The Custodian - balance keeper of the Front Door world, helps Sie and Raahi in a time of need.
Reasons why I rated it 5 stars:
1. The plot:
The plot was very driven and I did not find any plot holes. The story was written in a very high level for a middle grade novel and I truly enjoyed it.
2. My enjoyment:
I loved Silent Lee and the Adventure of the Side Door Key so much!
3. Character and story development:
Man oh man! There was a ton of background and development for both the characters and the story!! I was really blown away as there was more then the average young adult novel.
4. Grammar and spelling:
I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors and Silent Lee was very well-written.
5. The overall story:
This was such an adorable story! I really loved the modern and historical balance that the author created while also adding a bit of magic into the story.
"Bookworms ate books - they didn't read them. And what was wrong with reading, anyway?"
Lee (2222 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Nov 26, 2019 (Updated Nov 29, 2019)
The morning after his 85th birthday party, millionaire Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is found dead in his study. The local police find no evidence of foul play and come to the conclusion that his death was a suicide. However, an anonymous person believes otherwise and has hired celebrity detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) to try and determine 'whodunit'. When Blanc arrives at the Thrombey residence, it's been a week since Harlan's death, and all members of his large eccentric family have been assembled for further questioning by the police while Blanc looks on, quietly digesting their stories.
The family is portrayed by an impressive cast - Harlan’s daughter Linda (Jamie Lee Curtis) is the matriarch of the family, married to womanizer Richard (Don Johnson) and mother to Ransom (Chris Evans). Harlan's son Walt (Michael Shannon) works for his fathers publishing company and Joni (Toni Collette) is the wife of Harlan's late son. As they each recount their version of events, all slightly different to the others, it becomes clear that none of them is particularly honest, and that all of them had ample reason to want Harlan out of their lives.
The only person seemingly telling the truth, due to the fact that she suffers from a condition whereby she throws up if she doesn't, is Harlan's young nurse and confidante, Marta (Ana de Armas). She was the last to see Harlan the night he died, so her version of the events that took place that evening leading up to his demise are taken as the truth. It's up to Blanc to try and deduce what happened during the few hours that Marta was away from the house until the next morning.
Much of the fun of Knives Out comes from piecing together the various layers of information and working out who the hell is actually telling the truth. It's classic Agatha Christie stuff with a modern twist, a house full of characters that could easily have been lifted straight out of a game of Clue/Cluedo and twists and turns aplenty, keeping you on your toes and guessing at the truth until the very end. I felt it lagged for a while during the second half though, before gathering pace again for the finale, and I didn't find it to be the huge standout hit of the year that many reviewers have claimed it to be either. But, overall, Knives Out is just a hell of a lot of devilish fun.
The family is portrayed by an impressive cast - Harlan’s daughter Linda (Jamie Lee Curtis) is the matriarch of the family, married to womanizer Richard (Don Johnson) and mother to Ransom (Chris Evans). Harlan's son Walt (Michael Shannon) works for his fathers publishing company and Joni (Toni Collette) is the wife of Harlan's late son. As they each recount their version of events, all slightly different to the others, it becomes clear that none of them is particularly honest, and that all of them had ample reason to want Harlan out of their lives.
The only person seemingly telling the truth, due to the fact that she suffers from a condition whereby she throws up if she doesn't, is Harlan's young nurse and confidante, Marta (Ana de Armas). She was the last to see Harlan the night he died, so her version of the events that took place that evening leading up to his demise are taken as the truth. It's up to Blanc to try and deduce what happened during the few hours that Marta was away from the house until the next morning.
Much of the fun of Knives Out comes from piecing together the various layers of information and working out who the hell is actually telling the truth. It's classic Agatha Christie stuff with a modern twist, a house full of characters that could easily have been lifted straight out of a game of Clue/Cluedo and twists and turns aplenty, keeping you on your toes and guessing at the truth until the very end. I felt it lagged for a while during the second half though, before gathering pace again for the finale, and I didn't find it to be the huge standout hit of the year that many reviewers have claimed it to be either. But, overall, Knives Out is just a hell of a lot of devilish fun.
Nadya R (9 KP) rated The Nightingale in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I am speechless. I finished the book 15 minutes ago, but I am still staring in the wall and tears are falling down my cheeks. It’s been a while since I’ve been that touched by a book. This story and this two sisters turn upside down the idea of the women’s role in WWII.
Kristin Hanna leads us through the dangerous way of Isabelle Rossignol - The Nightingale why fly to the freedom. She is one of the most active person in the Resistance. Fully opposite to her is her sister Vianne. She is humble and mild tempered she doesn’t want to be a hero. Her only wish is to survive the war together with her family. The Rossignol sisters were abandoned by their father (veteran of WWI) after their mother dead. Soon Vianne met Antoine and has a family with him. While Isabelle’s rebellious temper doesn’t allow her to accept her father decision and escape from every boarding school, she was sent to, and continue to go back to her father and to fight for his love. Exactly this part of her character made her The Nightingale- a woman equal to the men.
"Women were integral to the Resistance. Why couldn't men see that?"
On the other side Vianne doesn’t want to take part in the war. She doesn’t rise her voice, doesn’t ask questions. She’s been comfortable to the Nazis. And that is her point- been quiet and invisible means that you will survive. But as much as you want to close your eyes for injustice there is a breaking point - all these brutalities and injustice make us leave our ‘comfortable’ lives in the name of hundreds of saved lives.
The rebellious in Isabelle takes her to the centre of the French Resistance. First- used as a courier, she prove herself and began an important member in no time. Exposing her life to danger, she leads a pilot after a pilot through the high peaks of Pyrenees to their freedom. Meanwhile Vianne is living with Nazi officer, when one day the war bent her. She initiated a mission to save the Jews children.
"Vianne started them off on a song and they picked it up instantly, singing loudly as they clapped and bounced and skipped. Did they even notice the bombed out buildings they passed? The smoking piles of ribble that had once been homes? Or was destruction the ordinary view of their childhoods, unremarkable, unnoticeable."
But the war left its mark on all these kids, forced them to grow up fast and even in very young age they have already seen all these misfortunes in the world.
"Really, Maman? How long must we pretend?" The sadness-and the anger-in those beautiful eyes was heartbreaking. Vianne apparently had hidden nothing from this child who'd lost her childhood to war."
The author doesn’t save anything. At the end of the book she takes us to the Ravensbrück - the concentration camp in Germany for women why took an action against the Nazis. It’s known as one of the most brutal of them all. The picture, the author shows us, are breathtaking. All these tortures, rapes all these things that they did to women... I kinda felt it son deep and personal. I am not really able to write about this.
And at the end let’s speak about the love in the book. Here you can find lots of love.
Love of country.
Mother love.
Sisters love.
Love in the wartime is strong but faded at the same time. Set on the background, love is there but she(love) realises that in this times there is no place for blind love stories. On other hand this love is even stronger.
Every stolen second.
Every kiss is unspoken ‘Goodbye'.
Every meeting may be the last one.
".. a broken heart hurts as badly in wartime as in peace. Say good-bye to your young man well."
When it comes to war we imagine all these men risking their lives in the name of their country. But this is the story about war but trough women’s view. A women’s war on the shadow. Taking a risk of being caught and executed they keep delivering the message between the Resistance members. They are the connection between all pieces of the puzzle.
"Men tell stories. Women get on with it. For us it was a shadow war. There were no parades for us when it was over, no medals or mentions in history books. We did what we had to during the war, and when it was over, we picked up the pieces and started our lives over."
Kristin Hanna leads us through the dangerous way of Isabelle Rossignol - The Nightingale why fly to the freedom. She is one of the most active person in the Resistance. Fully opposite to her is her sister Vianne. She is humble and mild tempered she doesn’t want to be a hero. Her only wish is to survive the war together with her family. The Rossignol sisters were abandoned by their father (veteran of WWI) after their mother dead. Soon Vianne met Antoine and has a family with him. While Isabelle’s rebellious temper doesn’t allow her to accept her father decision and escape from every boarding school, she was sent to, and continue to go back to her father and to fight for his love. Exactly this part of her character made her The Nightingale- a woman equal to the men.
"Women were integral to the Resistance. Why couldn't men see that?"
On the other side Vianne doesn’t want to take part in the war. She doesn’t rise her voice, doesn’t ask questions. She’s been comfortable to the Nazis. And that is her point- been quiet and invisible means that you will survive. But as much as you want to close your eyes for injustice there is a breaking point - all these brutalities and injustice make us leave our ‘comfortable’ lives in the name of hundreds of saved lives.
The rebellious in Isabelle takes her to the centre of the French Resistance. First- used as a courier, she prove herself and began an important member in no time. Exposing her life to danger, she leads a pilot after a pilot through the high peaks of Pyrenees to their freedom. Meanwhile Vianne is living with Nazi officer, when one day the war bent her. She initiated a mission to save the Jews children.
"Vianne started them off on a song and they picked it up instantly, singing loudly as they clapped and bounced and skipped. Did they even notice the bombed out buildings they passed? The smoking piles of ribble that had once been homes? Or was destruction the ordinary view of their childhoods, unremarkable, unnoticeable."
But the war left its mark on all these kids, forced them to grow up fast and even in very young age they have already seen all these misfortunes in the world.
"Really, Maman? How long must we pretend?" The sadness-and the anger-in those beautiful eyes was heartbreaking. Vianne apparently had hidden nothing from this child who'd lost her childhood to war."
The author doesn’t save anything. At the end of the book she takes us to the Ravensbrück - the concentration camp in Germany for women why took an action against the Nazis. It’s known as one of the most brutal of them all. The picture, the author shows us, are breathtaking. All these tortures, rapes all these things that they did to women... I kinda felt it son deep and personal. I am not really able to write about this.
And at the end let’s speak about the love in the book. Here you can find lots of love.
Love of country.
Mother love.
Sisters love.
Love in the wartime is strong but faded at the same time. Set on the background, love is there but she(love) realises that in this times there is no place for blind love stories. On other hand this love is even stronger.
Every stolen second.
Every kiss is unspoken ‘Goodbye'.
Every meeting may be the last one.
".. a broken heart hurts as badly in wartime as in peace. Say good-bye to your young man well."
When it comes to war we imagine all these men risking their lives in the name of their country. But this is the story about war but trough women’s view. A women’s war on the shadow. Taking a risk of being caught and executed they keep delivering the message between the Resistance members. They are the connection between all pieces of the puzzle.
"Men tell stories. Women get on with it. For us it was a shadow war. There were no parades for us when it was over, no medals or mentions in history books. We did what we had to during the war, and when it was over, we picked up the pieces and started our lives over."
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 8, 2020
When the trailers for this landed I knew I needed to see it, despite a large reservation it looked good and I was excited to see what they'd done with the story.
Cecilia has made the break from her abusive boyfriend and is trying to retake her life. It isn't easy when she's worried he'll be waiting for her or following the people she knows. That all changes when her sister tells her that he's been found dead, she can finally come out of hiding.
It's liberating, but she soon feels like his death might not have been as final as everyone thought. The creak of a floorboard, a noise in the next room, she's not alone. As terrible things start to befall her can she prove there's something to her claims or will everyone just think she's lost her mind?
I was not disappointed by this film, it really was a thrilling watch. It amazed me that you can achieve things like this on a (relatively) teeny tiny budget. I haven't seen or gone looking for details on how they did the invisible bits of the Invisible Man yet but my first instinct would be a morph suit and some wires (if you know please do let me know in the comments)... I'm guessing that inventing a real invisible suit was definitely out of their budget.
The effects never looked bad, there was one moment where it didn't entirely look real but that was during the very first physical interaction with him and I'm inclined to put it down to my surprise. I do want to go and see this again though so we'll see how it fairs then. I'm going to skip to another topic that crosses with this one...
The scares... normally I find horror films with obvious jump scares easier to deal with, it's a classic, and mainly predictable, device. There were a lot of times I was scared during the screening, but not in the way I expected. Those jump scares were there and I was feeling rather confident I'd do fine... I didn't do fine. They managed to scare me in a way I've never quite experienced before. Even the moment we see in the trailer where Cecilia is peering out of the attic got me. The build up to all these moments and the anticipation made them so much more than simple jumps and that really impressed me. The moments where he's revealed from behind his invisibility blend in really well with everything despite the fact your brain is telling you it isn't possible... or is it?!
I loved the camerawork. You'd pan out to an empty space and wonder if it was really empty, a doorway, an empty corridor... the way we zoom out to view the whole room with the realisation that he could be anywhere is an excellent way to make the audience as paranoid as she is.
When Cecilia makes her escape from Adrian she is taken in by James and his daughter Sydney, played by Aldis Hodge and Storm Reid. The dynamic the three of them have together is great, James is such a strong person when it comes to trying to help Cecilia get back to a normal life. That was a great thing to see and Hodge plays it perfectly. I'm also relieved that in the whole film we're never made to see a romance between the two, it's friendship and survival, nothing more.
Elisabeth Moss in the lead role had been my initial hesitation, I'm not really a fan. She was good, if she hadn't been I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie so much, but I felt like she managed to make Cecilia a little too manic at times. Occasionally that worked, and since I saw the film I've been wondering what sort of difference it would have made had she not been that way.
I liked that there were nods to things throughout the film, those little references were fun to look for but I wish they'd kept it out of the trailers. The bandaged man had no context in the trailer apart from a little flag for people who know previous versions. I can see trying to appeal to them with it but I'm not convinced the rest of the trailer would have anyway so what was the point?
The Invisible Man was much more that I had hoped for, it created so much suspense out of an empty room and some clever angles that I was just ever so slightly paranoid by the time I got home.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-invisible-man-movie-review.html
Cecilia has made the break from her abusive boyfriend and is trying to retake her life. It isn't easy when she's worried he'll be waiting for her or following the people she knows. That all changes when her sister tells her that he's been found dead, she can finally come out of hiding.
It's liberating, but she soon feels like his death might not have been as final as everyone thought. The creak of a floorboard, a noise in the next room, she's not alone. As terrible things start to befall her can she prove there's something to her claims or will everyone just think she's lost her mind?
I was not disappointed by this film, it really was a thrilling watch. It amazed me that you can achieve things like this on a (relatively) teeny tiny budget. I haven't seen or gone looking for details on how they did the invisible bits of the Invisible Man yet but my first instinct would be a morph suit and some wires (if you know please do let me know in the comments)... I'm guessing that inventing a real invisible suit was definitely out of their budget.
The effects never looked bad, there was one moment where it didn't entirely look real but that was during the very first physical interaction with him and I'm inclined to put it down to my surprise. I do want to go and see this again though so we'll see how it fairs then. I'm going to skip to another topic that crosses with this one...
The scares... normally I find horror films with obvious jump scares easier to deal with, it's a classic, and mainly predictable, device. There were a lot of times I was scared during the screening, but not in the way I expected. Those jump scares were there and I was feeling rather confident I'd do fine... I didn't do fine. They managed to scare me in a way I've never quite experienced before. Even the moment we see in the trailer where Cecilia is peering out of the attic got me. The build up to all these moments and the anticipation made them so much more than simple jumps and that really impressed me. The moments where he's revealed from behind his invisibility blend in really well with everything despite the fact your brain is telling you it isn't possible... or is it?!
I loved the camerawork. You'd pan out to an empty space and wonder if it was really empty, a doorway, an empty corridor... the way we zoom out to view the whole room with the realisation that he could be anywhere is an excellent way to make the audience as paranoid as she is.
When Cecilia makes her escape from Adrian she is taken in by James and his daughter Sydney, played by Aldis Hodge and Storm Reid. The dynamic the three of them have together is great, James is such a strong person when it comes to trying to help Cecilia get back to a normal life. That was a great thing to see and Hodge plays it perfectly. I'm also relieved that in the whole film we're never made to see a romance between the two, it's friendship and survival, nothing more.
Elisabeth Moss in the lead role had been my initial hesitation, I'm not really a fan. She was good, if she hadn't been I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie so much, but I felt like she managed to make Cecilia a little too manic at times. Occasionally that worked, and since I saw the film I've been wondering what sort of difference it would have made had she not been that way.
I liked that there were nods to things throughout the film, those little references were fun to look for but I wish they'd kept it out of the trailers. The bandaged man had no context in the trailer apart from a little flag for people who know previous versions. I can see trying to appeal to them with it but I'm not convinced the rest of the trailer would have anyway so what was the point?
The Invisible Man was much more that I had hoped for, it created so much suspense out of an empty room and some clever angles that I was just ever so slightly paranoid by the time I got home.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-invisible-man-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
