Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ted (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Full disclosure: I am a huge Family Guy fan. I’ve been watching since day one, and even own every volume and special edition DVD released. Okay, now that we have that out of the way.
Ted is the multi-talented Seth MacFarlane’s directorial debut for a feature films. It follows the story of John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg), who as a kid never really had any friends. For Christmas he received a talking teddy bear, which he decided to name Ted. One day he makes a wish that will forever change his life, a wish that Ted could really talk to him and be best friends. That wish came true.
Ted became a world-wide sensation. He was not a figment of John’s imagination, but rather a real-life talking teddy bear. Ted (who is voiced by MacFarlane) becomes the overnight celebrity that we have seen so many times, and eventually becomes old news when fame becomes fleeting.
Flash forward 28 years to present day, John is now 35, but still acts very much the child.
He is in a dead end job, and would rather blow the important things off in his life to hang with his best friend Ted.
This includes is Lori (Mila Kunis), his girlfriend of four years. I think we see where this going, typical relationship problems and the movie then becomes about trying to win Lori back with the help of Ted.
While the story line is a little predictable, it never felt that way while watching it. There is a lot of subtle humor, and there is a lot of in your face rude, crude humor. There were also a lot of cameos. Some will only be obvious to Family Guy fans or fans of the eighties, while others will be right in your face.
One thing that grinds my gears is when some movies these day show the funniest moments in the trailer, and the rest of the movie is… eh.
One thing is for sure: it keeps you laughing almost the whole way through. There were even some lines that I missed because of how loud the laughter in the theater was (which means a repeat trip, I think).
There were a lot of one-liners, though, that I will probably end up using on a regular basis.
I kind of always get nervous about bringing someone to a movie I want to see, afraid that they won’t like my choice. My guest came in with very low expectations of the film, but she ended up laughing the entire time, and even got really caught up in the tense moments.
With all of the drug and sex references, and crude humor, this movie is definitely not meant for a younger audience, or probably even the really easily offended. Keep that in mind and if you still want to watch, you will not be disappointed.
Ted is the multi-talented Seth MacFarlane’s directorial debut for a feature films. It follows the story of John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg), who as a kid never really had any friends. For Christmas he received a talking teddy bear, which he decided to name Ted. One day he makes a wish that will forever change his life, a wish that Ted could really talk to him and be best friends. That wish came true.
Ted became a world-wide sensation. He was not a figment of John’s imagination, but rather a real-life talking teddy bear. Ted (who is voiced by MacFarlane) becomes the overnight celebrity that we have seen so many times, and eventually becomes old news when fame becomes fleeting.
Flash forward 28 years to present day, John is now 35, but still acts very much the child.
He is in a dead end job, and would rather blow the important things off in his life to hang with his best friend Ted.
This includes is Lori (Mila Kunis), his girlfriend of four years. I think we see where this going, typical relationship problems and the movie then becomes about trying to win Lori back with the help of Ted.
While the story line is a little predictable, it never felt that way while watching it. There is a lot of subtle humor, and there is a lot of in your face rude, crude humor. There were also a lot of cameos. Some will only be obvious to Family Guy fans or fans of the eighties, while others will be right in your face.
One thing that grinds my gears is when some movies these day show the funniest moments in the trailer, and the rest of the movie is… eh.
One thing is for sure: it keeps you laughing almost the whole way through. There were even some lines that I missed because of how loud the laughter in the theater was (which means a repeat trip, I think).
There were a lot of one-liners, though, that I will probably end up using on a regular basis.
I kind of always get nervous about bringing someone to a movie I want to see, afraid that they won’t like my choice. My guest came in with very low expectations of the film, but she ended up laughing the entire time, and even got really caught up in the tense moments.
With all of the drug and sex references, and crude humor, this movie is definitely not meant for a younger audience, or probably even the really easily offended. Keep that in mind and if you still want to watch, you will not be disappointed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Don't Breathe 2 (2021) in Movies
Aug 18, 2021
Nicely paced direction and non stop (bloody) action (1 more)
Madelyn Grace delivers a nice and professional performance
Not very original (1 more)
Should we be rooting for Norman at all?
That kid’ll need counselling for life!
I mean. If there was ever an opportunity to come up with a clever title for a sequel, this was it right? "Breathe Again"; "Hold it for a bit longer"; "Are You Turning Blue Yet?". But no... we just get a boring old "2" at the end!
Positives:
- Five years is an awfully long time to wait for a sequel! I have to admit I needed to read through my original review for "Don't Breathe" and the synopsis on IMDB before I went to see this. But, given that it is a fairly standard schlock-horror home-invasion movie, this is a nicely pieced together movie. Debut director Sayagues, who co-wrote the first film with original director Fede Alverez, moves the action along at a non-stop pace leaving you quite exhausted by the end of the (pleasantly short) 98 minutes.
- Stephen Lang nicely retreads his monster from the first movie as a besotted but anxious parent. But particularly good I thought was Madelyn Grace who plays the 11 year old Phoenix. I never once thought "there's a child actress doing a performance". Great job!
Negatives:
- It doesn't get many brownie points for originality: the blindness dice was already rolled in the original. So here we get some re-tread scenes of "the blind man being king", with red insecticide spray replacing the darkness.
- It never feels quite right that you are supposed to be cheering on Nordstrom: someone with virtually no redeeming features (other than a love for dogs).
- The original film had a decidedly icky moment with the whole baster thing. Here we have an equally icky, if ridiculous, plot-twist, taking us into a very dark place indeed. But what is supposed to be a shock-horror moment actually had me in fits of laughter, since all I could think of was a particular scene in "Monty Python and the Meaning of Life"!
Summary Thoughts on "Don't Breathe 2": We've been here so many times before that it's almost a (bloody) paint by numbers. But I have to admit that I thought this one was well done, and a cut above the norm. The first movie made $158M on a budget of just $10M. This one has a (restrained) $15M budget, and has already made that back. Good for them. The gore factor makes it not one for the illustrious Mrs Movie Man (who wisely didn't come). But for horror fans out for a nice gory little romp, this has its attractions.
And by the way, there is a 'monkey' (post-credit scene in One Mann's Movies speak) in this one. Well, Alvarez and Sayagues aren't going to dead-end their options for a "Don't Breathe 3" are they?
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Five years is an awfully long time to wait for a sequel! I have to admit I needed to read through my original review for "Don't Breathe" and the synopsis on IMDB before I went to see this. But, given that it is a fairly standard schlock-horror home-invasion movie, this is a nicely pieced together movie. Debut director Sayagues, who co-wrote the first film with original director Fede Alverez, moves the action along at a non-stop pace leaving you quite exhausted by the end of the (pleasantly short) 98 minutes.
- Stephen Lang nicely retreads his monster from the first movie as a besotted but anxious parent. But particularly good I thought was Madelyn Grace who plays the 11 year old Phoenix. I never once thought "there's a child actress doing a performance". Great job!
Negatives:
- It doesn't get many brownie points for originality: the blindness dice was already rolled in the original. So here we get some re-tread scenes of "the blind man being king", with red insecticide spray replacing the darkness.
- It never feels quite right that you are supposed to be cheering on Nordstrom: someone with virtually no redeeming features (other than a love for dogs).
- The original film had a decidedly icky moment with the whole baster thing. Here we have an equally icky, if ridiculous, plot-twist, taking us into a very dark place indeed. But what is supposed to be a shock-horror moment actually had me in fits of laughter, since all I could think of was a particular scene in "Monty Python and the Meaning of Life"!
Summary Thoughts on "Don't Breathe 2": We've been here so many times before that it's almost a (bloody) paint by numbers. But I have to admit that I thought this one was well done, and a cut above the norm. The first movie made $158M on a budget of just $10M. This one has a (restrained) $15M budget, and has already made that back. Good for them. The gore factor makes it not one for the illustrious Mrs Movie Man (who wisely didn't come). But for horror fans out for a nice gory little romp, this has its attractions.
And by the way, there is a 'monkey' (post-credit scene in One Mann's Movies speak) in this one. Well, Alvarez and Sayagues aren't going to dead-end their options for a "Don't Breathe 3" are they?
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Annabelle Comes Home (2019) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019
Not The Best In The Series But Entertains
One of the most intriguing yet often exaggerated lines in movie history is “based on actual events”. I’ve always had a fascination with supernatural thrillers that came with this tag line, whether it’s a movie like Amityville Horror or The Exorcism of Emily Rose. None of these are more popular than The Conjuring series, based on two real life demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren. Whether you believe in ghosts and haunted houses or not, these films always played on the notion that the events “could” possibly happen…even if they were exaggerated for Hollywood audiences. Annabelle Comes Home breaks the trend of previous Conjuring movies by not bothering to pretend that it’s based on any of the “actual” events from the previous films. So how does it stack up to its predecessors?
The movie begins with Ed and Lorraine Warren retrieving Annabelle and taking the scary doll home to lock her away in the now infamous artifact room. The dolls presence is so evil, that it takes not only blessings by a priest but being locked away in a case made up of glass from an old church to keep it’s evil at bay. Not only is the display case locked, but a sign is placed upon it, warning any who may enter not to release the doll within. Several pad locks later the Warrens feel comfortable that the evil within is contained.
A year passes and both Ed and Lorraine are called away on business, entrusting the care of their young daughter Judy (McKenna Grace) to her responsible babysitter Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman). Mary Ellen’s friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) blackmails Mary Ellen into allowing her to come over and stay with her and Judy in the Warren’s household. Using an opportunity when both Judy and Mary Ellen are out of the house, Daniela finds the artifact room (and the keys necessary to open it), and what at first appears to be idle curiosity, quickly turns into an attempt to utilize the artifacts in the room to reach out to her recently deceased father. It is in this attempt that Daniela unknowingly releases the evil in the room when she opens the case that Annabelle is in (it’s not like there was a BIG sign warning her not to do so).
Annabelle in her search for a soul, releases the full power and evil of all the artifacts in the room. Everything from an empty suit of Samurai armor to a wedding dress the drives the wearer insane is on display. Even a werewolf is released upon the world hunting an unwary suitor of Mary Ellen’s who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s up to this band of babysitters and children to restore order to the house and find a way to contain the evil that has been brought upon the world.
Annabelle Comes Home starts out fairly slow and takes awhile to build the tension. The first hour of the movie is mainly the interaction between the family and friends, and introductions to the various artifacts that are in the room. It’s not until the second half of the film when things really begin to take off. When the movie finally hits its creepy stride, it has plenty of genuine scares and intense moments, but focuses on several of the iconic artifacts and their affect on the individuals in the house.
While each of the artifacts has its own unique and interesting characteristics, we are hit with a barrage of items that are each going after one of the guests in the house. Whether it’s the television that can predict the future, or the locket that allows communication with the dead, it’s a lot to keep track of and tends to lose focus on the main plot. The movie attempts to cram every noticeable item from its previous films and give it some main purpose in the plot. In fact, the creepiest of all the artifacts Annabelle, takes on the role of evil puppet master controlling the artifacts which means less screen time and scares for her. Personally, Annabelle is scary enough to carry her own film (she has in previous installments), but in this film she is relegated to a side character, where the haunted artifacts take center stage.
The area I feel the movie loses the most is in the “believability” state. Remember that the Conjuring universe is based on real people, and on their actual encounters. Unfortunately, at no point in this film does one believe that any of these supernatural events could be mistaken for reality. It’s what I feel is the difference between a supernatural thriller and simply a monster movie. Much like other supernatural films, it’s about what you don’t see, rather than what you do, and Annabelle Comes Home unfortunately relies too much on its visuals leaving little to the viewers imagination. Imagining what a demon could look like is scarier than what Hollywood can dream up and show on the screen.
Ultimately Annabelle Comes home is a good movie which should have been great. It forgoes much of what made the series popular and replaces it with some goofy scenes and special effects. The artifacts are interesting, which makes the movie enjoyable, but not scary. I went in with hopes that I’d leave at least a little unnerved, looking under my covers, or turning the numerous dolls around that adorn my wife’s doll room. Unfortunately, I left feeling as though I’d simply been given a tour of the artifact room, with one night of scares that would disappear the next morning, as if from a bad dream. If you are looking to be scared, this movie likely won’t do that. If you are looking for an interesting movie with deeper background into the artifacts that have adorned the Warrens room for the past films, then this is the film for you.
3 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/06/20/annabelle-comes-home/
The movie begins with Ed and Lorraine Warren retrieving Annabelle and taking the scary doll home to lock her away in the now infamous artifact room. The dolls presence is so evil, that it takes not only blessings by a priest but being locked away in a case made up of glass from an old church to keep it’s evil at bay. Not only is the display case locked, but a sign is placed upon it, warning any who may enter not to release the doll within. Several pad locks later the Warrens feel comfortable that the evil within is contained.
A year passes and both Ed and Lorraine are called away on business, entrusting the care of their young daughter Judy (McKenna Grace) to her responsible babysitter Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman). Mary Ellen’s friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) blackmails Mary Ellen into allowing her to come over and stay with her and Judy in the Warren’s household. Using an opportunity when both Judy and Mary Ellen are out of the house, Daniela finds the artifact room (and the keys necessary to open it), and what at first appears to be idle curiosity, quickly turns into an attempt to utilize the artifacts in the room to reach out to her recently deceased father. It is in this attempt that Daniela unknowingly releases the evil in the room when she opens the case that Annabelle is in (it’s not like there was a BIG sign warning her not to do so).
Annabelle in her search for a soul, releases the full power and evil of all the artifacts in the room. Everything from an empty suit of Samurai armor to a wedding dress the drives the wearer insane is on display. Even a werewolf is released upon the world hunting an unwary suitor of Mary Ellen’s who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s up to this band of babysitters and children to restore order to the house and find a way to contain the evil that has been brought upon the world.
Annabelle Comes Home starts out fairly slow and takes awhile to build the tension. The first hour of the movie is mainly the interaction between the family and friends, and introductions to the various artifacts that are in the room. It’s not until the second half of the film when things really begin to take off. When the movie finally hits its creepy stride, it has plenty of genuine scares and intense moments, but focuses on several of the iconic artifacts and their affect on the individuals in the house.
While each of the artifacts has its own unique and interesting characteristics, we are hit with a barrage of items that are each going after one of the guests in the house. Whether it’s the television that can predict the future, or the locket that allows communication with the dead, it’s a lot to keep track of and tends to lose focus on the main plot. The movie attempts to cram every noticeable item from its previous films and give it some main purpose in the plot. In fact, the creepiest of all the artifacts Annabelle, takes on the role of evil puppet master controlling the artifacts which means less screen time and scares for her. Personally, Annabelle is scary enough to carry her own film (she has in previous installments), but in this film she is relegated to a side character, where the haunted artifacts take center stage.
The area I feel the movie loses the most is in the “believability” state. Remember that the Conjuring universe is based on real people, and on their actual encounters. Unfortunately, at no point in this film does one believe that any of these supernatural events could be mistaken for reality. It’s what I feel is the difference between a supernatural thriller and simply a monster movie. Much like other supernatural films, it’s about what you don’t see, rather than what you do, and Annabelle Comes Home unfortunately relies too much on its visuals leaving little to the viewers imagination. Imagining what a demon could look like is scarier than what Hollywood can dream up and show on the screen.
Ultimately Annabelle Comes home is a good movie which should have been great. It forgoes much of what made the series popular and replaces it with some goofy scenes and special effects. The artifacts are interesting, which makes the movie enjoyable, but not scary. I went in with hopes that I’d leave at least a little unnerved, looking under my covers, or turning the numerous dolls around that adorn my wife’s doll room. Unfortunately, I left feeling as though I’d simply been given a tour of the artifact room, with one night of scares that would disappear the next morning, as if from a bad dream. If you are looking to be scared, this movie likely won’t do that. If you are looking for an interesting movie with deeper background into the artifacts that have adorned the Warrens room for the past films, then this is the film for you.
3 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/06/20/annabelle-comes-home/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Due to circumstances we have all lived with now for about 8 months, that scarce need a word more said about them, this has remained only the second film I have seen at a cinema in 2020, following an early January viewing of The Rise of Skywalker. And it will probably be the last film I head out to see on the big screen for a while. This, naturally, breaks my heart. It does, however, place Christopher Nolan’s complex thriller into a very peculiar and memorable place in the collective psyche of film lovers.
For many it will have been the film that brought them out of lockdown number one into a world of slight hope that normality was returning. As it co-incided with my daughter’s birthday it became part of a treat day out that although socially distanced was my first attempt to do all the things I hadn’t done for a while; eat out in a restaurant, have a pint in a bar, and then see a movie. The experience, whilst still enjoyable and memorable, was tainted by how surreal and empty the world felt – the meal was in an half empty and cold Hard Rock Cafe, with no music and a smell of disinfectant; the pint was in a pop up outside bar that only took orders via a phone app in advance; and the movie was attended by six people, of which we were two, separated by not two metres but at least ten!
I have been in some screenings that were dead quiet before, but not for a film so anticipated and more or less mainstream. It was odd. Hats off to the staff of Everyman, Glasgow, however, who were exemplary in their courtesy, welcoming and safety precautions. It wasn’t their fault it was empty, and I applaud them for keeping the ball rolling at that time around the start of September. At least the sofas were comfy, the place was warm and the smell was still of popcorn and not domestos.
I had been looking forward to the film immensely. The hype and build-up to it had come with a lot of baggage, with rumours of production delays and script issues going back a few years. It was shrouded in mystery, with even the trailer being delayed until the very last moment and critics not getting to see it until a day before release, such was the fear of spoilers leaking out. My first concern, being so excited by the prospect of another time bending classic to join Memento, Interstellar and Inception in the ranks of “OK, what just happened” masterpieces, was that the sound during the trailers was very very low – if they kept it that low during the actual film I would demand my money back… I needn’t have worried…
Never in my life have I felt as if my eardrums were about to burst whilst watching a film! Literally, at times, Hans Zimmer’s powerful and emotive score was vibrating my testicles! Add to that the fact that a lot of the dialogue seemed mumbled and drowned out by it, and it made the first 45 minutes very difficult to enjoy. Was this horrendous sound mix a mistake? Or very much part of the plan to overwhelm the senses and confuse the brain? Was it part of the puzzle or a massive technical oversight? As almost everyone seems to have the same complaint about it, the jury is still out on that one…
And so, it took a little while for me to atune to the tone, regardless of how hard you had to focus to take in anything of what was going on. There was a point where I became certain I wasn’t going to like it – I braced myself for disappointment. And then… at a certain moment in a certain scene the penny dropped and so did my jaw, as the full realisation of where this was going, and how unique and mind blowing that concept was, finally kicked in. From that moment on it just got better and better, as the technical achievement required, let alone intelligence, to pull this off surpassed all previous levels of anything I can ever remember.
The “Wow” moments just kept on coming as the action, tension and intrigue kept rising to fever pitch. In the end, so profoundly bewildering were the potential possibilities of the plot and premise that I gave up trying to meet it intellectually and just allowed it to wash over me emotionally, knowing that repeat viewings would allow me to engage with it in that way later.
John David Washington as “the protagonist” is suitably neutral and unshowy in the role; threatening to be compared to Bond or Bourne, but never quite being either, as this world, despite it’s surface glamour and underground seediness feels much closer to DiCaprio’s suit wearing mind spy in Inception than either of those. For anyone who didn’t yet catch his terrific turn in BlacKkKlansman this may be their first encounter with him, and you’d have to say he has a very solid, dependable quality, without ever being starry or attention seeking. Watchable, for sure, but never chewing the scenery at the cost of the story – and surely that is why Nolan chose him.
Beside Washington is another excellent performance by the increasingly impressive Robert Pattinson. His role as the enigmatic Neil here grows on you minute to minute during the film, and afterwards you wonder if he wasn’t the best thing about the entire production… there is a subtlety of meaning in all his scenes that is only revealed late on, and demands a further watch or two to get every nuance from. He gives the impression he is entirely in control of the full meaning of the film and his own performance, so much so he strikes me as the pivot that would tip you either way on whether you liked the film or not.
And I have to admit not liking it is a valid option. You couldn’t possibly watch it whilst tired or in a bad mood, it is just too full on, bordering on oppressive at times. There are also a few supporting roles that I’m not 100% certain of, most notably Kenneth Brannagh as the seeming villain of the piece, Sator. His accent is a distraction, and it feels like a character you’ve seen him play before – fine in most ways, but nothing special – and I found myself wishing they had cast someone else in that role. Likewise with the less exposed Elizabeth Debicki – adequate, but not transcendent, as her character might have been with a more charismatic actress.
My overall impression was definitely affected by how much my daughter enjoyed it – she loves having a mystery to solve, especially if it involves time or some other sci-fi concept. The pleasure of it was chatting it over excitedly afterwards, to see if either of us had truly understood the full story, in the same way I remember doing with others about all Nolan’s concept pieces over the years. If you come to it being less than bothered about having to unlock a puzzle box then it may very well piss you off, to the extent you either just give up or sit back and enjoy the ride. However, I would assert confidently that it is worth the effort and will reward multiple viewings over time. Especially as more clues to its meaning are discussed and revealed.
One thing that can be said with certainty is that there is no other film like this that has ever been made. It feels different and beyond comparison in many crucial ways. The ambition of Nolan has to be applauded. I only wish he would go back and sort out that sound design before I get around to seeing it again.
For many it will have been the film that brought them out of lockdown number one into a world of slight hope that normality was returning. As it co-incided with my daughter’s birthday it became part of a treat day out that although socially distanced was my first attempt to do all the things I hadn’t done for a while; eat out in a restaurant, have a pint in a bar, and then see a movie. The experience, whilst still enjoyable and memorable, was tainted by how surreal and empty the world felt – the meal was in an half empty and cold Hard Rock Cafe, with no music and a smell of disinfectant; the pint was in a pop up outside bar that only took orders via a phone app in advance; and the movie was attended by six people, of which we were two, separated by not two metres but at least ten!
I have been in some screenings that were dead quiet before, but not for a film so anticipated and more or less mainstream. It was odd. Hats off to the staff of Everyman, Glasgow, however, who were exemplary in their courtesy, welcoming and safety precautions. It wasn’t their fault it was empty, and I applaud them for keeping the ball rolling at that time around the start of September. At least the sofas were comfy, the place was warm and the smell was still of popcorn and not domestos.
I had been looking forward to the film immensely. The hype and build-up to it had come with a lot of baggage, with rumours of production delays and script issues going back a few years. It was shrouded in mystery, with even the trailer being delayed until the very last moment and critics not getting to see it until a day before release, such was the fear of spoilers leaking out. My first concern, being so excited by the prospect of another time bending classic to join Memento, Interstellar and Inception in the ranks of “OK, what just happened” masterpieces, was that the sound during the trailers was very very low – if they kept it that low during the actual film I would demand my money back… I needn’t have worried…
Never in my life have I felt as if my eardrums were about to burst whilst watching a film! Literally, at times, Hans Zimmer’s powerful and emotive score was vibrating my testicles! Add to that the fact that a lot of the dialogue seemed mumbled and drowned out by it, and it made the first 45 minutes very difficult to enjoy. Was this horrendous sound mix a mistake? Or very much part of the plan to overwhelm the senses and confuse the brain? Was it part of the puzzle or a massive technical oversight? As almost everyone seems to have the same complaint about it, the jury is still out on that one…
And so, it took a little while for me to atune to the tone, regardless of how hard you had to focus to take in anything of what was going on. There was a point where I became certain I wasn’t going to like it – I braced myself for disappointment. And then… at a certain moment in a certain scene the penny dropped and so did my jaw, as the full realisation of where this was going, and how unique and mind blowing that concept was, finally kicked in. From that moment on it just got better and better, as the technical achievement required, let alone intelligence, to pull this off surpassed all previous levels of anything I can ever remember.
The “Wow” moments just kept on coming as the action, tension and intrigue kept rising to fever pitch. In the end, so profoundly bewildering were the potential possibilities of the plot and premise that I gave up trying to meet it intellectually and just allowed it to wash over me emotionally, knowing that repeat viewings would allow me to engage with it in that way later.
John David Washington as “the protagonist” is suitably neutral and unshowy in the role; threatening to be compared to Bond or Bourne, but never quite being either, as this world, despite it’s surface glamour and underground seediness feels much closer to DiCaprio’s suit wearing mind spy in Inception than either of those. For anyone who didn’t yet catch his terrific turn in BlacKkKlansman this may be their first encounter with him, and you’d have to say he has a very solid, dependable quality, without ever being starry or attention seeking. Watchable, for sure, but never chewing the scenery at the cost of the story – and surely that is why Nolan chose him.
Beside Washington is another excellent performance by the increasingly impressive Robert Pattinson. His role as the enigmatic Neil here grows on you minute to minute during the film, and afterwards you wonder if he wasn’t the best thing about the entire production… there is a subtlety of meaning in all his scenes that is only revealed late on, and demands a further watch or two to get every nuance from. He gives the impression he is entirely in control of the full meaning of the film and his own performance, so much so he strikes me as the pivot that would tip you either way on whether you liked the film or not.
And I have to admit not liking it is a valid option. You couldn’t possibly watch it whilst tired or in a bad mood, it is just too full on, bordering on oppressive at times. There are also a few supporting roles that I’m not 100% certain of, most notably Kenneth Brannagh as the seeming villain of the piece, Sator. His accent is a distraction, and it feels like a character you’ve seen him play before – fine in most ways, but nothing special – and I found myself wishing they had cast someone else in that role. Likewise with the less exposed Elizabeth Debicki – adequate, but not transcendent, as her character might have been with a more charismatic actress.
My overall impression was definitely affected by how much my daughter enjoyed it – she loves having a mystery to solve, especially if it involves time or some other sci-fi concept. The pleasure of it was chatting it over excitedly afterwards, to see if either of us had truly understood the full story, in the same way I remember doing with others about all Nolan’s concept pieces over the years. If you come to it being less than bothered about having to unlock a puzzle box then it may very well piss you off, to the extent you either just give up or sit back and enjoy the ride. However, I would assert confidently that it is worth the effort and will reward multiple viewings over time. Especially as more clues to its meaning are discussed and revealed.
One thing that can be said with certainty is that there is no other film like this that has ever been made. It feels different and beyond comparison in many crucial ways. The ambition of Nolan has to be applauded. I only wish he would go back and sort out that sound design before I get around to seeing it again.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Typical Oscar Fodder
There are two types of film critic when it comes to the Academy Awards. Those who enjoy the glamour that the Oscars bring every spring and those who despise what the awards mean for film. I’m in the latter camp, I find them out of touch with what movie-watching audiences enjoy and feel an overhaul is necessary to reflect that.
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/
Housewife of Horror (12 KP) rated Bad Dreams (1988) in Movies
Aug 25, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
Bad Dreams
Cast: Bruce Abbott (Re-Animator; Bride of Re-Animator); Jennifer Rubin (Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors)
Release date: April 8th 1988
Blu-ray release date: 23rd July 2018
Genre: Horror
Directed by: Andrew Fleming
Run time: 84 mins (approx)
'When Cynthia wakes up, she'll wish she were dead...'
Cynthia (Jennifer Rubin) wakes up from her coma after 13 years. She was the only survivor of a Jonestown-style suicide cult, a suicide-by-fire pact, instigated by Unity Fields cult leader Franklin Harris (Richard Lynch). We see in a later flashback that she began to retreat after the fire was started, she was just far enough away from the source of the resulting explosion that she lived, badly hurt, but alive.
When she wakes, she begins to have nightmarish visions of Harris, burnt and bloodied from the fire that destroyed all bar herself at Unity Fields.
Cynthia is inserted into a group therapy session, for borderline personality disorder treatment, run by Dr Alex Karmen (Bruce Abbott). Here she meets an eclectic bunch of individuals, including masochist Ralph (Dean Cameron), who takes an instant shine to Cynthia. The film is worth a watch for Dean Cameron's performance, he portrays a very likable psychotic patient perfectly.
The first of Dr Karmen's patients to die is Lana (E.G.Daily). an upset Cynthia has a flashback/vision of herself being baptized into the cult of Unity fields, a vision that takes a dark twist when Harris begins holding her underwater, forcing her under until she drowns, Cynthia horrified, realizes this is actually Lana. Afterwards, with Lana's body below him, Harris turns to Cynthia and says "I warned you Cynthia, I warned you someone else would take your place". Cynthia then 'wakes up' and hears a scream. Running into the pool room, she is confronted with the lifeless body of Lana, who has drowned in the pool - much like in her vision.
Each of the group continue to meet their end, one by one, by Harris (or so it would seem). Cynthia continues to have horrendous visions of him, his face all burnt up from the fire, and then the next person meets a grisly demise. She is convinced it's Harris, she is convinced he has returned to take her, and is punishing her and those around her for fleeing the fire.
This is a very well acted, intense and thought provoking film. It doesn't rely on gore and shocks to garner reaction, it relies primarily on the interactions and relationships of the characters, as well as the increasing tension and fear within Cynthia and the remaining patients of Dr Karmen. I particularly enjoyed the relationship between Cynthia and Dr Karmen, Bruce Abbot portrays a very sweet and empathetic character, who cares a great deal about his patients, especially Cynthia who he bonds with closely.
I very much enjoyed the end twist of the film, up on a rooftop, when we are shocked to find out that it is actually Karmen's superior, Dr Berrisford, who has been dosing the patients with psychogenic drugs to make the patients unstable and suicidal. All this just to corroborate his research - makes you wonder how much of this actually goes on in institutions. Karmen had suspected something was amiss with Berrisford for a while, and he confronts him after he sends Cynthia to isolation - "you want this, you want her on the edge, you've wanted this from the beginning".
We are then left to decide for ourselves whether Cynthia's visions of Harris and the resulting deaths of the patients were actually suicides caused by Dr Berrisford's drug cocktails, or was Harris actually there, was he he really tormenting Cynthia and murdering everyone around her in a twisted revenge for her survival.
Special Features:
Duel format collectors edition includes the High Definition Blu-ray (1080p) and the Standard Definition DVD version of the movie.
Interview with director Andrew Fleming.
Interview with actress Jennifer.
Interview with Spencer Murphy - Bad Dreams fan and University Lecturer.
Audio commentary with Nathaniel Thompson and Tim Greer (Mondo-Digital.com).
Theatrical trailer.
Reversible sleeve with alternate artwork.
The blu-ray includes a booklet from 88 Films, looking back at the 30 essential North American slasher movies from 1960-89.
I love this film, I'm extremely impressed with the Blu-ray from 88 Films' Slash Classics Collection.
Great special features, well worth a watch and a listen.
5/5 for the film and 3/5 for the features (A Bruce Abbott interview would have made it perfect)
If you haven't seen this, give it a watch, it's a horror classic!!
Lesley-Ann, the Housewife of Horror
Cast: Bruce Abbott (Re-Animator; Bride of Re-Animator); Jennifer Rubin (Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors)
Release date: April 8th 1988
Blu-ray release date: 23rd July 2018
Genre: Horror
Directed by: Andrew Fleming
Run time: 84 mins (approx)
'When Cynthia wakes up, she'll wish she were dead...'
Cynthia (Jennifer Rubin) wakes up from her coma after 13 years. She was the only survivor of a Jonestown-style suicide cult, a suicide-by-fire pact, instigated by Unity Fields cult leader Franklin Harris (Richard Lynch). We see in a later flashback that she began to retreat after the fire was started, she was just far enough away from the source of the resulting explosion that she lived, badly hurt, but alive.
When she wakes, she begins to have nightmarish visions of Harris, burnt and bloodied from the fire that destroyed all bar herself at Unity Fields.
Cynthia is inserted into a group therapy session, for borderline personality disorder treatment, run by Dr Alex Karmen (Bruce Abbott). Here she meets an eclectic bunch of individuals, including masochist Ralph (Dean Cameron), who takes an instant shine to Cynthia. The film is worth a watch for Dean Cameron's performance, he portrays a very likable psychotic patient perfectly.
The first of Dr Karmen's patients to die is Lana (E.G.Daily). an upset Cynthia has a flashback/vision of herself being baptized into the cult of Unity fields, a vision that takes a dark twist when Harris begins holding her underwater, forcing her under until she drowns, Cynthia horrified, realizes this is actually Lana. Afterwards, with Lana's body below him, Harris turns to Cynthia and says "I warned you Cynthia, I warned you someone else would take your place". Cynthia then 'wakes up' and hears a scream. Running into the pool room, she is confronted with the lifeless body of Lana, who has drowned in the pool - much like in her vision.
Each of the group continue to meet their end, one by one, by Harris (or so it would seem). Cynthia continues to have horrendous visions of him, his face all burnt up from the fire, and then the next person meets a grisly demise. She is convinced it's Harris, she is convinced he has returned to take her, and is punishing her and those around her for fleeing the fire.
This is a very well acted, intense and thought provoking film. It doesn't rely on gore and shocks to garner reaction, it relies primarily on the interactions and relationships of the characters, as well as the increasing tension and fear within Cynthia and the remaining patients of Dr Karmen. I particularly enjoyed the relationship between Cynthia and Dr Karmen, Bruce Abbot portrays a very sweet and empathetic character, who cares a great deal about his patients, especially Cynthia who he bonds with closely.
I very much enjoyed the end twist of the film, up on a rooftop, when we are shocked to find out that it is actually Karmen's superior, Dr Berrisford, who has been dosing the patients with psychogenic drugs to make the patients unstable and suicidal. All this just to corroborate his research - makes you wonder how much of this actually goes on in institutions. Karmen had suspected something was amiss with Berrisford for a while, and he confronts him after he sends Cynthia to isolation - "you want this, you want her on the edge, you've wanted this from the beginning".
We are then left to decide for ourselves whether Cynthia's visions of Harris and the resulting deaths of the patients were actually suicides caused by Dr Berrisford's drug cocktails, or was Harris actually there, was he he really tormenting Cynthia and murdering everyone around her in a twisted revenge for her survival.
Special Features:
Duel format collectors edition includes the High Definition Blu-ray (1080p) and the Standard Definition DVD version of the movie.
Interview with director Andrew Fleming.
Interview with actress Jennifer.
Interview with Spencer Murphy - Bad Dreams fan and University Lecturer.
Audio commentary with Nathaniel Thompson and Tim Greer (Mondo-Digital.com).
Theatrical trailer.
Reversible sleeve with alternate artwork.
The blu-ray includes a booklet from 88 Films, looking back at the 30 essential North American slasher movies from 1960-89.
I love this film, I'm extremely impressed with the Blu-ray from 88 Films' Slash Classics Collection.
Great special features, well worth a watch and a listen.
5/5 for the film and 3/5 for the features (A Bruce Abbott interview would have made it perfect)
If you haven't seen this, give it a watch, it's a horror classic!!
Lesley-Ann, the Housewife of Horror
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022 (Updated Feb 19, 2022)
Wasted backstories that go nowhere. (3 more)
Rehashes and recreates the original film while not offering much of its own material.
New characters fall flat.
Feels like a half-cocked attempt at a new "film. "
Tearing the Face Off of a Horror Franchise
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a direct sequel to the original 1974 film nearly 50 years later. Directed by David Blue Garcia with a screenplay by Chris Thomas Devlin and a story by Fede Alvarez (co-writer and director of the 2013 Evil Dead remake) and Rodo Sayagues (Don’t Breathe 1 & 2), Texas Chainsaw Massacre follows a group of young 20-somethings as they venture from Austin to Harlow, TX; a seven hour drive.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Telling Christina Goodbye in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/02/review-telling-christina-goodbye-by-lurlene-mcdaniel.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Original Rating: 3.5
*Formatting and image(s) have been lost due to copy and pasting.
I hate commenting about how much the synopsis gives away. I don't find much joy in reading the book when the synopsis gives spoilers away. And I hate giving it a lower rating because of that synopsis. But as much as I want to like this book, I'm gonna have to give it a facepalm. The synopsis practically gave away EVERYTHING. From the synopsis, cover AND title, the book already gives these things away (I don't think this counts as spoilers since the synopsis already says it):
~Trisha, Christina, Cody, and Tucker are Seniors.
~Best friends, Trisha and Christina are having a great year.
~Trisha is dating Cody. Christina is dating Tucker.
~Trisha doesn't get along with Tucker.
~Christina receives a scholarship from University of Vermont.
~Tucker is controlling of Christina and wants her to stay.
~They get into a car crash after a basketball game. Trisha is injured, Cody's in a coma and Christina's dead. Yet Tucker is all injure-less.
Not to mean it in a bad way, but that gives practically the entire plot and some other stuff. Maybe even the entire book. Besides some things, such as (those who read it would know the answers already, but I'm speaking from the reader's perspective of just examining the book at the bookstore and reading the synopsis and such):
~Does Cody wake up from the coma?
~Do those effected by Christina's death find the courage to move on and heal?
~Do Trisha and Tucker get along later?
~Etc, etc. One can only know the answers to their many questions when fully reading a book.
But despite the synopsis giving so much away, Ms. McDaniel still leaves the reader, regardless of whether just staring at it at the bookstore or anyplace or have to read it due to required reading, with many questions. Props for not giving the full story away, especially the ending. And while some of us may love spoilers to the point of actually spilling beans, some of us just like to keep things detailed yet vague on what's happening because we just love the suspense building up. It would've been a triple facepalm if the synopsis gave any more away (kinda explains the meme).
If you're still thinking I'm being a bit negative, the only part I found pretty bad was how the synopsis gave it all away (I'm that person who hates too much spoilers and end up predicting and being right majority of the time. I kinda like my dose of keeping me guessing...).
In many good parts (of the pie or something good), Ms McDaniel manages to narrow in with an emotional story while weaving in the meaning of losing a cared one and to not take life fully for granted, because you never know when it will all end and it may be someone or something very close to you. (Kinda reminds me of a sad song...)
Original Rating: 3.5
*Formatting and image(s) have been lost due to copy and pasting.
I hate commenting about how much the synopsis gives away. I don't find much joy in reading the book when the synopsis gives spoilers away. And I hate giving it a lower rating because of that synopsis. But as much as I want to like this book, I'm gonna have to give it a facepalm. The synopsis practically gave away EVERYTHING. From the synopsis, cover AND title, the book already gives these things away (I don't think this counts as spoilers since the synopsis already says it):
~Trisha, Christina, Cody, and Tucker are Seniors.
~Best friends, Trisha and Christina are having a great year.
~Trisha is dating Cody. Christina is dating Tucker.
~Trisha doesn't get along with Tucker.
~Christina receives a scholarship from University of Vermont.
~Tucker is controlling of Christina and wants her to stay.
~They get into a car crash after a basketball game. Trisha is injured, Cody's in a coma and Christina's dead. Yet Tucker is all injure-less.
Not to mean it in a bad way, but that gives practically the entire plot and some other stuff. Maybe even the entire book. Besides some things, such as (those who read it would know the answers already, but I'm speaking from the reader's perspective of just examining the book at the bookstore and reading the synopsis and such):
~Does Cody wake up from the coma?
~Do those effected by Christina's death find the courage to move on and heal?
~Do Trisha and Tucker get along later?
~Etc, etc. One can only know the answers to their many questions when fully reading a book.
But despite the synopsis giving so much away, Ms. McDaniel still leaves the reader, regardless of whether just staring at it at the bookstore or anyplace or have to read it due to required reading, with many questions. Props for not giving the full story away, especially the ending. And while some of us may love spoilers to the point of actually spilling beans, some of us just like to keep things detailed yet vague on what's happening because we just love the suspense building up. It would've been a triple facepalm if the synopsis gave any more away (kinda explains the meme).
If you're still thinking I'm being a bit negative, the only part I found pretty bad was how the synopsis gave it all away (I'm that person who hates too much spoilers and end up predicting and being right majority of the time. I kinda like my dose of keeping me guessing...).
In many good parts (of the pie or something good), Ms McDaniel manages to narrow in with an emotional story while weaving in the meaning of losing a cared one and to not take life fully for granted, because you never know when it will all end and it may be someone or something very close to you. (Kinda reminds me of a sad song...)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated My Dark Vanessa in Books
Mar 19, 2020
At fifteen, the very bright Vanessa Wye earns a scholarship position to boarding school. It's the year 2000. There she meets Jacob Strane, her English teacher, who is forty-two-years-old. Soon the two are involved in a powerful relationship--and one that quickly turns sexual. Seventeen years later, Vanessa is working as a concierge at a hotel, just another in a series of dead-end jobs. She hasn't had any real serious relationships. And now, Jacob Strane, has been accused of sexual abuse by a former student, Taylor Birch. Taylor tracks down Vanessa, wanting her to share her story, too. But Vanessa doesn't feel she was abused by Strane. In fact, her entire life is framed by her love story with Strane. As Taylor Birch's story gains traction in the press, Vanessa must confront her past and what it means to her.
"'I'm going to ruin you.' He says it with obvious torment, a glimpse into how much he's thought about it, wrestled with it."
This book...wow. I was absolutely captivated by Vanessa's story. She tells her tale in two parts: her adolescence, as she meets Jacob Strane at school and they begin their relationship; and then the present, as Taylor Birch's story hits the press and Vanessa must deal with the fact that her love for Jacob Strane is being portrayed as abuse and assault.
"It's strange to know that whenever I remember myself at fifteen, I'll think of this."
For a book with such dark subject matter, it's really beautiful. Russell is a wonderful writer, and this story unfolds almost lyrically. It's so well-done and completely mesmerizing. The sections featuring young Vanessa capture that early adolescent yearning and longing so perfectly--that deep desire to feel needed and wanted. To Vanessa, this is a love story, a romantic tale of a man needing and loving her. She blocks out and overlooks the parts of the story that don't fit. Understanding that some victims don't see abuse as abuse is key to the story, and Russell portrays the dynamic between Strane and Vanessa so well.
"'It's just my luck,' he said, 'that when I finally find my soul mate, she's fifteen years old.'"
As a result, we get a very thoughtful look at abuse, rape, and assault. And, yes, the sections of older Vanessa's story touch across the #metoo movement, as Taylor Birch and others want so desperately for Vanessa to join their side, to share her story. For them or for Vanessa, it's hard to say. This book is so dark, yet so insightful. Vanessa's inner struggle--basically she's having to re-look at the entire foundation upon which her life is built--is one of the most profoundly written and moving journeys I've seen in literature in quite some time. It's not easy to read about, certainly, and it's not always easy to understand her actions, of course. The story can make you uncomfortable; it can feel problematic. But it's an important read, and it's so beautifully and poetically written. I highly recommend it (taking into account the obvious trigger warnings, of course). 4.5+ stars.
"'I'm going to ruin you.' He says it with obvious torment, a glimpse into how much he's thought about it, wrestled with it."
This book...wow. I was absolutely captivated by Vanessa's story. She tells her tale in two parts: her adolescence, as she meets Jacob Strane at school and they begin their relationship; and then the present, as Taylor Birch's story hits the press and Vanessa must deal with the fact that her love for Jacob Strane is being portrayed as abuse and assault.
"It's strange to know that whenever I remember myself at fifteen, I'll think of this."
For a book with such dark subject matter, it's really beautiful. Russell is a wonderful writer, and this story unfolds almost lyrically. It's so well-done and completely mesmerizing. The sections featuring young Vanessa capture that early adolescent yearning and longing so perfectly--that deep desire to feel needed and wanted. To Vanessa, this is a love story, a romantic tale of a man needing and loving her. She blocks out and overlooks the parts of the story that don't fit. Understanding that some victims don't see abuse as abuse is key to the story, and Russell portrays the dynamic between Strane and Vanessa so well.
"'It's just my luck,' he said, 'that when I finally find my soul mate, she's fifteen years old.'"
As a result, we get a very thoughtful look at abuse, rape, and assault. And, yes, the sections of older Vanessa's story touch across the #metoo movement, as Taylor Birch and others want so desperately for Vanessa to join their side, to share her story. For them or for Vanessa, it's hard to say. This book is so dark, yet so insightful. Vanessa's inner struggle--basically she's having to re-look at the entire foundation upon which her life is built--is one of the most profoundly written and moving journeys I've seen in literature in quite some time. It's not easy to read about, certainly, and it's not always easy to understand her actions, of course. The story can make you uncomfortable; it can feel problematic. But it's an important read, and it's so beautifully and poetically written. I highly recommend it (taking into account the obvious trigger warnings, of course). 4.5+ stars.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Detective Comics Volume 3: League of Shadows in Books
Nov 30, 2020
<i>A little bit of "backstory": I am a sucker for well-executed Ra's al Ghul story! To me, he is one of Batman's best adversaries and one of my personal faves! Add in more human, less off-the-scale like he is under Tom King's run Batman, and you've got a great treat for me! Now, that said, on to my review.</i>
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/MW33UBM.gif"; width="300" height="200">
I am still enjoying my return to reading DC's books rather than the current slop Marvel is serving up. My latest undertaking has been James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Last night, I devoured the 3rd volume, "League of Shadows", largely for the reasons in my backstory above.
I know some folks on interwebs have issues with Tynion's writing for the Dark Knight. I've read things like "bland" and "his stories go NOWHERE". I don't know which of his Batman entries they are reading, but thus far, not a one has disappointed.
This one was particularly interesting as it dealt with Cassandra Cain, a former Batgirl/now calling herself "Orphan" as that is what her parents have chosen to do, leaving her <i>orphaned</i>. Her mother is Sandra Wu-San, or as she is better known, Lady Shiva. There is no love lost between Cassandra and her mother; essentially, Shiva treats the poor girl as if she was dead, not even a product of her womb. Sad, really. But, it is good to see Cassandra and Shiva's relationship dealt with following the whole "Rebirth".
I may be in a serious minority here, but I really liked the ending (not <i>really</i> much of Spoiler), where Batman holds her in a embrace, letting her known she is not alone..ever. Sure, Bats is all about the whole "Dark Knight" and "Oooh, feel my scary presence, criminals!", but it was nice to see his human, father-esque side to his character. Much better than the way he is being handled in his main book!
Equally meaty and worthwhile was Ra's inclusion as part of the story. I found him to be well-written, feeling much like "The Demon's Head" that is his being. I was totally able to hear, in my head, his dialogue as read by David Warner, who did his voice in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. That definitely seems like Tynion is truly writing at the top of his game!
I was also quite pleased with the subplot of more background to Batwoman's character. I was not really that familiar with her character, other than in the animated DC film. That aside, I found her to be real and decidedly interesting, especially her relationship with her father. Again, some excellent writing from Tynion!
And speaking of Batwoman, how cool was it to see Batman assembling Bat-Family 2.0? This plot element harkened back to the Silver Age, where DETECTIVE COMICS would often do double-sized issues that focused on the then-Bat-Fam: Batman, Robin (Dick Grayson, not yet Nightwing), Batgirl, and sometimes, Elongated Man would get a story in it as well.
The new Bat-Fam consists of Batman (of course!), Batwing (Lucius Fox's son), Batwoman, Orphan (Cassandra Cain), Azrael (who I consider to be not-so-interest, leaving me to skip the last issue of this volume as it was 100% Azrael-centric), Spoiler (Stephanie Brown), Red Robin, and the-now-trying-his-hand-at-being-a-rehabilitated-good-guy Clayface. Quite a mixed bag, almost like a Skittles version of the Bat-Fam, but interesting choices for a collaborative team.
The team functions well enough, but there is some static and tension, as would be true of any team assembled such as this lot. All in all, I really dug the gang, and they really worked well together. Super-smooth idea of introducing a Bat-Fam 2.0! Bravo, James Tynion IV,you are AWESOME for doing this!
It is also worth mentioning the artists for this volume: Marcio Takara and Christian Duce. I was already familiar with Takara's delicious style from his work on Marvel's ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. Christian Duce was previously unknown to me, but after seeing his super-legit art skills, he is going to be one for me to keep an eye for going forward!
Blah, blah, blah, am I right? I could go on and on, but if you weren't reading my blathering, you could be reading this excellent Bat-book. I was going to give it 5-Stars, but I see that I was just giving them out for a while not unlike Oprah giving away new cars! So, that's it! Go already! You need to get a'readin'!
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/MW33UBM.gif"; width="300" height="200">
I am still enjoying my return to reading DC's books rather than the current slop Marvel is serving up. My latest undertaking has been James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Last night, I devoured the 3rd volume, "League of Shadows", largely for the reasons in my backstory above.
I know some folks on interwebs have issues with Tynion's writing for the Dark Knight. I've read things like "bland" and "his stories go NOWHERE". I don't know which of his Batman entries they are reading, but thus far, not a one has disappointed.
This one was particularly interesting as it dealt with Cassandra Cain, a former Batgirl/now calling herself "Orphan" as that is what her parents have chosen to do, leaving her <i>orphaned</i>. Her mother is Sandra Wu-San, or as she is better known, Lady Shiva. There is no love lost between Cassandra and her mother; essentially, Shiva treats the poor girl as if she was dead, not even a product of her womb. Sad, really. But, it is good to see Cassandra and Shiva's relationship dealt with following the whole "Rebirth".
I may be in a serious minority here, but I really liked the ending (not <i>really</i> much of Spoiler), where Batman holds her in a embrace, letting her known she is not alone..ever. Sure, Bats is all about the whole "Dark Knight" and "Oooh, feel my scary presence, criminals!", but it was nice to see his human, father-esque side to his character. Much better than the way he is being handled in his main book!
Equally meaty and worthwhile was Ra's inclusion as part of the story. I found him to be well-written, feeling much like "The Demon's Head" that is his being. I was totally able to hear, in my head, his dialogue as read by David Warner, who did his voice in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. That definitely seems like Tynion is truly writing at the top of his game!
I was also quite pleased with the subplot of more background to Batwoman's character. I was not really that familiar with her character, other than in the animated DC film. That aside, I found her to be real and decidedly interesting, especially her relationship with her father. Again, some excellent writing from Tynion!
And speaking of Batwoman, how cool was it to see Batman assembling Bat-Family 2.0? This plot element harkened back to the Silver Age, where DETECTIVE COMICS would often do double-sized issues that focused on the then-Bat-Fam: Batman, Robin (Dick Grayson, not yet Nightwing), Batgirl, and sometimes, Elongated Man would get a story in it as well.
The new Bat-Fam consists of Batman (of course!), Batwing (Lucius Fox's son), Batwoman, Orphan (Cassandra Cain), Azrael (who I consider to be not-so-interest, leaving me to skip the last issue of this volume as it was 100% Azrael-centric), Spoiler (Stephanie Brown), Red Robin, and the-now-trying-his-hand-at-being-a-rehabilitated-good-guy Clayface. Quite a mixed bag, almost like a Skittles version of the Bat-Fam, but interesting choices for a collaborative team.
The team functions well enough, but there is some static and tension, as would be true of any team assembled such as this lot. All in all, I really dug the gang, and they really worked well together. Super-smooth idea of introducing a Bat-Fam 2.0! Bravo, James Tynion IV,you are AWESOME for doing this!
It is also worth mentioning the artists for this volume: Marcio Takara and Christian Duce. I was already familiar with Takara's delicious style from his work on Marvel's ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. Christian Duce was previously unknown to me, but after seeing his super-legit art skills, he is going to be one for me to keep an eye for going forward!
Blah, blah, blah, am I right? I could go on and on, but if you weren't reading my blathering, you could be reading this excellent Bat-book. I was going to give it 5-Stars, but I see that I was just giving them out for a while not unlike Oprah giving away new cars! So, that's it! Go already! You need to get a'readin'!