Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Vox Lux (2018) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
Black Swan 2: The Return of Durant
In 1999, a middle school teenager Celeste has survived a horrific school shooting which has left multiple students and teacher dead. Through tragedy, the wounded girl triumphs through the singing of a tribute song which goes viral and becomes an anthem for heartbreak throughout the world.
She achieves instant success with her song, so much so, she gets a recording contract and her and her sister are whisked away to Sweden to record it officially and make a music video. Her manager chaperones her time there, but does not have much success. The girls have a good time partying and choosing every excess including the consequences. The video is a success and she becomes a star.
Eighteen years later, the aging pop star is trying to make a comeback and show she can still keep up. Her relationships with her sister, teenage daughter and sister as she has lived the ego-driven life of a celebrity now for too long. One the eve of a concert performance, another massive multi-person shooting happens at a beachfront, the perpetrators donning masks used in one of her videos making her the target of paparazzi and media scrutiny at a pivotal time in her life.
She tries to salvage her relationship with her daughter who is going through her own teenage angst with mixed success. It seems she is her own worst enemy questioning her choices and continuing leading the lifestyle of a demanding celebrity.
The movie seems like a tale of two halves with the teenage Celeste and the "grown up" version even having screen captures saying so. For me the first half was way more interesting than the second. The teenage Celeste was more believable, maybe because you didn't know her, but the screenplay was more interesting for her as well.
One can only imagine the emotions of having to live through such a tragedy and having to rebuild your life afterwards. Then adding on top of it, her instantaneous global stardom could not have done well to heal her physical, but emotional scars as well.
I felt Natalie Portman seemed out of place and her acting felt very wooden and dry to me unlike most of her portfolio. She even was an executive producer on the film along with her costar Jude Law, so she may have been focused on that instead of her acting performance. She doesn't appear in the film until close to an hour in and filmed her scenes over 10 days. It is unfortunate, but I really didn't believe her and took me out of several scenes as a result.
It is hard to empathize with the celebrity lifestyle of excess and demands having never lived it myself. It has certainly been portrayed onscreen much better than it is here and it really felt like the two halves of the film were disconnected and not resolved.
I certainly don't mind, or even encourage, the vague open-ended type of film generally speaking if it is left you to think about the plight of the characters their decisions, and ultimate destinations; however, this film accomplishes this only through bad writing.
The concert footage was well done and Portman certainly delivered on transforming into a Madonna/Britney Spears type icon. I was just hoping for more of a payoff and felt disappointed in the end.
She achieves instant success with her song, so much so, she gets a recording contract and her and her sister are whisked away to Sweden to record it officially and make a music video. Her manager chaperones her time there, but does not have much success. The girls have a good time partying and choosing every excess including the consequences. The video is a success and she becomes a star.
Eighteen years later, the aging pop star is trying to make a comeback and show she can still keep up. Her relationships with her sister, teenage daughter and sister as she has lived the ego-driven life of a celebrity now for too long. One the eve of a concert performance, another massive multi-person shooting happens at a beachfront, the perpetrators donning masks used in one of her videos making her the target of paparazzi and media scrutiny at a pivotal time in her life.
She tries to salvage her relationship with her daughter who is going through her own teenage angst with mixed success. It seems she is her own worst enemy questioning her choices and continuing leading the lifestyle of a demanding celebrity.
The movie seems like a tale of two halves with the teenage Celeste and the "grown up" version even having screen captures saying so. For me the first half was way more interesting than the second. The teenage Celeste was more believable, maybe because you didn't know her, but the screenplay was more interesting for her as well.
One can only imagine the emotions of having to live through such a tragedy and having to rebuild your life afterwards. Then adding on top of it, her instantaneous global stardom could not have done well to heal her physical, but emotional scars as well.
I felt Natalie Portman seemed out of place and her acting felt very wooden and dry to me unlike most of her portfolio. She even was an executive producer on the film along with her costar Jude Law, so she may have been focused on that instead of her acting performance. She doesn't appear in the film until close to an hour in and filmed her scenes over 10 days. It is unfortunate, but I really didn't believe her and took me out of several scenes as a result.
It is hard to empathize with the celebrity lifestyle of excess and demands having never lived it myself. It has certainly been portrayed onscreen much better than it is here and it really felt like the two halves of the film were disconnected and not resolved.
I certainly don't mind, or even encourage, the vague open-ended type of film generally speaking if it is left you to think about the plight of the characters their decisions, and ultimate destinations; however, this film accomplishes this only through bad writing.
The concert footage was well done and Portman certainly delivered on transforming into a Madonna/Britney Spears type icon. I was just hoping for more of a payoff and felt disappointed in the end.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Every Last Lie in Books
Jan 23, 2018
Irritating characters (1 more)
Letdown of an ending
A bit of a letdown
Clara Solberg's new son, Felix, is just days old when her husband, Nick, and four-year-old daughter, Maisie are in a terrible car crash. They are heading home from Maisie's ballet class when Nick takes a curve too fast and the car slams into a tree--Maisie is amazingly uninjured, but Nick is killed. Devastated, Clara finds herself unable to sleep or eat and soon, Maisie begins having nightmares, telling her mother a bad man is after her and showing fear about a particular kind of car. Clara begins to wonder if her husband's death was really an accident. As she investigates, she also starts to ponder if she knew Nick at all.
Kubica's latest is told in alternating perspectives: Clara, as she deals with the aftermath of her husband's untimely death, and Nick, in the months leading up to the car crash. It should be an effective format, causing things to unfurl slowly and build tension and suspense. Unfortunately, in this case, it also creates a layer of stress. Maybe I just caught this book at a bad time--I was busy with work and could only pick it up in bits and pieces for a while--but the first 2/3 or so just stressed me out. I found myself almost dreading picking it back up and finding out what Clara was up to. While we should have sympathy for Clara, as her husband is dead and she's left alone with two small children, I often found her annoying and, honestly, a borderline terrible parent.
As such, her parenting decisions and overall bad judgment left me unable to enjoy or even fathom huge portions of the novel. Maybe she's clouded by grief and fatigue, but I'm not sure I'd immediately go from my child having one nightmare to thinking my husband had been killed. Nor would I leave my children in the (hot) car alone everywhere I went, chasing down leads on this supposed murder. Good grief. Her unhinged behavior was hard to stomach after awhile.
Nick's portions were almost easier to read, even if he too is an unsympathetic character: a man who just needed to not lie constantly to his wife. (Why, why must characters just lie incessantly in some of these novels?)
The one redeeming facet for this novel was the last third--and again, I have to say that maybe I just found the book at a bad time, because when I finally found a little time to read it uninterrupted (e.g., stay up too late the night before my children started school--a decision I'm still regretting), it did pick up. I read the last third in one setting, because the dramatic tension was finally affecting me, and I needed to know what happened.
Still, even in the end, I felt let down by it all. Why did I read this? What was the point? I have read two other of Kubica's novels and enjoyed them, particularly Pretty Baby, but this one just didn't do it for me.
Overall: stressful, lacked the appropriate tension for most of the novel, belabored by annoying/irritating characters, and a letdown of an ending. Before writing this review, I was thinking 3 stars, but as I'm writing, I realized this was a 2.5 star read for me. Hopefully you will enjoy it more than me. I will definitely read whatever Kubica writes (and I still have The Good Girl waiting on my Kindle app), but I'm disappointed by this one.
More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
Kubica's latest is told in alternating perspectives: Clara, as she deals with the aftermath of her husband's untimely death, and Nick, in the months leading up to the car crash. It should be an effective format, causing things to unfurl slowly and build tension and suspense. Unfortunately, in this case, it also creates a layer of stress. Maybe I just caught this book at a bad time--I was busy with work and could only pick it up in bits and pieces for a while--but the first 2/3 or so just stressed me out. I found myself almost dreading picking it back up and finding out what Clara was up to. While we should have sympathy for Clara, as her husband is dead and she's left alone with two small children, I often found her annoying and, honestly, a borderline terrible parent.
As such, her parenting decisions and overall bad judgment left me unable to enjoy or even fathom huge portions of the novel. Maybe she's clouded by grief and fatigue, but I'm not sure I'd immediately go from my child having one nightmare to thinking my husband had been killed. Nor would I leave my children in the (hot) car alone everywhere I went, chasing down leads on this supposed murder. Good grief. Her unhinged behavior was hard to stomach after awhile.
Nick's portions were almost easier to read, even if he too is an unsympathetic character: a man who just needed to not lie constantly to his wife. (Why, why must characters just lie incessantly in some of these novels?)
The one redeeming facet for this novel was the last third--and again, I have to say that maybe I just found the book at a bad time, because when I finally found a little time to read it uninterrupted (e.g., stay up too late the night before my children started school--a decision I'm still regretting), it did pick up. I read the last third in one setting, because the dramatic tension was finally affecting me, and I needed to know what happened.
Still, even in the end, I felt let down by it all. Why did I read this? What was the point? I have read two other of Kubica's novels and enjoyed them, particularly Pretty Baby, but this one just didn't do it for me.
Overall: stressful, lacked the appropriate tension for most of the novel, belabored by annoying/irritating characters, and a letdown of an ending. Before writing this review, I was thinking 3 stars, but as I'm writing, I realized this was a 2.5 star read for me. Hopefully you will enjoy it more than me. I will definitely read whatever Kubica writes (and I still have The Good Girl waiting on my Kindle app), but I'm disappointed by this one.
More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
Here Come the Warm Jets
Book
"Warren's first book of poems is highly self-reflective, interestingly interrogative, and a lot of...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Full review: OMG explodey goodness! End.
Okay fine... the real full review is below.
Mike Banning is now on President Trumbull's secret service detail, past events have left him battered and bruised but he's not ready to stop doing what he was made to do.
When they take a short break so the President can get away from everything Mike is left in a life-changing situation. His team is all dead, the President is in a coma and all the evidence of the incident points to him. He needs to prove his innocence while evading every law enforcement agency that's hunting him, his only advantage? They aren't Mike Banning.
I loved Olympus Has Fallen, it was only narrowly edged out of the top spot the year it came out by White House Down. London Has Fallen was a completely different beast, it was much more aggressive and dark, and while entertaining it didn't feel like it fit with Olympus. Angel was always on my watchlist despite the dubious second instalment. At the very least it was going to be an action film where I didn't really have to think too much.
Angel Has Fallen is entirely predictable, I had two moments where I went "Oh... so this is what's going to happen..." I wasn't even mad that I guessed though, I was having too much fun.
Gerard Butler gets to flex his comedic muscles a bit more (look out for the wire), he does comedy so well that I've always got my fingers crossed for more of it. He mangles a lot of bad guys, naturally, but he managed to work in the fact that Mike isn't the spring chicken he used to be and it's a very convincing act. He also isn't phased by the fact his wife has had plastic surgery and transformed into a completely different woman.
Morgan Freeman reprises his role as Trumbull this time in the office of President. Freeman is one of my favourite actors and he always brings something to his roles. At one point he makes a very brief speech and that tone... it has a magical calming effect and instils great confidence. What are his political views? Is it worth considering him for office?
Nick Nolte also makes an appearance as Mike's estranger father. This leads to some very amusing scenes throughout. I'm not sure if it's because Nolte has the "grizzled back woodsman" look but it doesn't feel quite right that it's a father and son situation. The two have good chemistry though, especially while they're out in the woods.
There are some good and some bad things about the way the film is done. The worst is the CGI. Generally you'll always know where there's CGI in action but it will blend in well enough to be ignored. Some of the time that's true in Angel Has Fallen, but there's a lot that can't be ignored.
When it comes to the camera work it's quite good, you don't feel like you're missing anything and it helps you keep up with the action. There's just one point very early on that sticks out. We get a couple of first person shooter shots and while I understand why they were included it felt very out of place with the tone of everything around it.
After I saw London Has Fallen it felt like the franchise had already given up on itself a bit. Angel has definitely pulled it back. Olympus was a "serious" movie, London went much more ridiculous, and Angel did the only thing it could... go all out action. It feels very much like a classic 80s action storyline and I can't be mad at that.
Originally posted on: emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/angel-has-fallen-movie-review.html
Okay fine... the real full review is below.
Mike Banning is now on President Trumbull's secret service detail, past events have left him battered and bruised but he's not ready to stop doing what he was made to do.
When they take a short break so the President can get away from everything Mike is left in a life-changing situation. His team is all dead, the President is in a coma and all the evidence of the incident points to him. He needs to prove his innocence while evading every law enforcement agency that's hunting him, his only advantage? They aren't Mike Banning.
I loved Olympus Has Fallen, it was only narrowly edged out of the top spot the year it came out by White House Down. London Has Fallen was a completely different beast, it was much more aggressive and dark, and while entertaining it didn't feel like it fit with Olympus. Angel was always on my watchlist despite the dubious second instalment. At the very least it was going to be an action film where I didn't really have to think too much.
Angel Has Fallen is entirely predictable, I had two moments where I went "Oh... so this is what's going to happen..." I wasn't even mad that I guessed though, I was having too much fun.
Gerard Butler gets to flex his comedic muscles a bit more (look out for the wire), he does comedy so well that I've always got my fingers crossed for more of it. He mangles a lot of bad guys, naturally, but he managed to work in the fact that Mike isn't the spring chicken he used to be and it's a very convincing act. He also isn't phased by the fact his wife has had plastic surgery and transformed into a completely different woman.
Morgan Freeman reprises his role as Trumbull this time in the office of President. Freeman is one of my favourite actors and he always brings something to his roles. At one point he makes a very brief speech and that tone... it has a magical calming effect and instils great confidence. What are his political views? Is it worth considering him for office?
Nick Nolte also makes an appearance as Mike's estranger father. This leads to some very amusing scenes throughout. I'm not sure if it's because Nolte has the "grizzled back woodsman" look but it doesn't feel quite right that it's a father and son situation. The two have good chemistry though, especially while they're out in the woods.
There are some good and some bad things about the way the film is done. The worst is the CGI. Generally you'll always know where there's CGI in action but it will blend in well enough to be ignored. Some of the time that's true in Angel Has Fallen, but there's a lot that can't be ignored.
When it comes to the camera work it's quite good, you don't feel like you're missing anything and it helps you keep up with the action. There's just one point very early on that sticks out. We get a couple of first person shooter shots and while I understand why they were included it felt very out of place with the tone of everything around it.
After I saw London Has Fallen it felt like the franchise had already given up on itself a bit. Angel has definitely pulled it back. Olympus was a "serious" movie, London went much more ridiculous, and Angel did the only thing it could... go all out action. It feels very much like a classic 80s action storyline and I can't be mad at that.
Originally posted on: emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/angel-has-fallen-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Slaughterhouse Rulez (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Form-Prefect of the Dead.
The Plot
Meredith Houseman (Simon Pegg) is housemaster of Sparta house in Slaughterhouse school: an ancient public school establishment steering England’s future greats to greatness (which probably explains a lot about the current Brexit mess!). Houseman is not in a happy place, given that his girlfriend is now in deepest darkest African doing “good works” with handsome French doctors, and particularly that she is played by Margot Robbie: I would be also be sad… #punching!
New school starter Don Wallace (Finn Cole) is equally unhappy as he is a northern teen dragooned into attending the school by his well-meaning Mum (Jo Hartley). His strange room-mate Willoughby (Asa Butterfield) seems to be a chronic depressive; he is being picked on by the prefect-bully Clegg (Tom Rhys Harries); and his bed was previously occupied by a Viscount, since deceased under unpleasant circumstances that no-one wants to talk about. At least he has the distraction of the upper-sixth school goddess Clemsie Lawrence (Hermione Corfield) to take his mind off his woes.
All this washes over “The Bat” – the school’s headmaster (Michael Sheen) – since he is engrossed in some shady deal with an evil corporation doing fracking in the school grounds. The fracking though seems to be doing more than just causing a few minor earth tremors, as ancient forces are unleashed.
The Review
The movie is positioned as a “comedy/horror”, along the lines of “Shaun of the Dead”. The film also has Frost and Pegg as executive producers and they also have starring roles in the film. But there the similarities really end: this is a “Cornetto film” without a cone of solid chocolate lurking at the bottom to enjoy.
The script (by director Crispian Mills and first-time screenwriter Henry Fitzherbert) is nowhere near as sharp as the Frost/Pegg scripts for their famous collaborations. The story overall makes precious little sense: it’s a hodge-podge of elements from many Harry Potter films (especially “The Chamber of Secrets”), Lindsay Anderson’s “If…”; and Roy Boulting’s “The Guinea Pig”; with also a sprinkling of the anarchic essence of Michael Palin’s classic “Tomkinson’s Schooldays”. The whole thing never manages to gel into a cohesive whole.
After the second reel, the film completely loses sight of the plot: there’s a whole lot of running, screaming and dying going on but there’s little logic behind any of it that I could fathom. What didn’t help my comprehension of what was going on were some ‘Cornetto-esque’ sequences of manic editing. Images were thrown onto the screen so subliminally that any clever nuance was lost. I’m sure at one point there was a droll (if gross) segue at a “Roman orgy” of a girl receiving oral sex before being ‘eaten out’ in an entirely different way. But you would need a Blu-ray and a frame-by-frame pause function to get the joke.
That’s not to say that I didn’t laugh a few times along the way. There are some sight gags – for example, Wooten (Kit Connor) as the lad at the bottom of the bullying pecking order, chained to a U-bend – that made me laugh, and some running jokes – for example, Frost as the head of the anti-fracking camp offering the kids drugs at every encounter – that mildly amuse. But once again here’s a British comedy that, like the atrocious “The Brits are Coming“, thinks that “funny” largely revolves around swearing a lot – how useful that “frack” sounds so similar to another word – with added bodily dismemberment.
The turns
Pegg and Frost ham it up with their usual comedy schtick well enough, and it was quite fun to see Sheen try a comedy role for a change as the conniving and supercilious headmaster. Elsewhere all the young cast put their hearts into it, but it’s again Asa Butterfield that your eyes gravitate to, due to his striking features. I last saw Asa in the excellent if harrowing WW1 drama “Journey’s End“, and he here proves again that he is a One Mann’s Movies ‘name to watch for the future’.
Final thoughts
There’s a lot to irritate in this film. From the “z” in the title to… well… about 80% of the film. There is no nuance or subtlety to either the writing or the direction. I think that’s a great shame. The film has a good premise hidden in there. An adult comedy set around the ridiculous rules and rites of public schools (away from the light nonsense of “St Trinians”) is overdue. And the whole subject of fracking, and the conflicts surrounding the controversial techniques, hasn’t yet – to my knowledge – been explored in a fictional movie. The film does have a few very funny moments. But as a whole I left the cinema with that “wasted two hours” feeling. Not recommended.
Meredith Houseman (Simon Pegg) is housemaster of Sparta house in Slaughterhouse school: an ancient public school establishment steering England’s future greats to greatness (which probably explains a lot about the current Brexit mess!). Houseman is not in a happy place, given that his girlfriend is now in deepest darkest African doing “good works” with handsome French doctors, and particularly that she is played by Margot Robbie: I would be also be sad… #punching!
New school starter Don Wallace (Finn Cole) is equally unhappy as he is a northern teen dragooned into attending the school by his well-meaning Mum (Jo Hartley). His strange room-mate Willoughby (Asa Butterfield) seems to be a chronic depressive; he is being picked on by the prefect-bully Clegg (Tom Rhys Harries); and his bed was previously occupied by a Viscount, since deceased under unpleasant circumstances that no-one wants to talk about. At least he has the distraction of the upper-sixth school goddess Clemsie Lawrence (Hermione Corfield) to take his mind off his woes.
All this washes over “The Bat” – the school’s headmaster (Michael Sheen) – since he is engrossed in some shady deal with an evil corporation doing fracking in the school grounds. The fracking though seems to be doing more than just causing a few minor earth tremors, as ancient forces are unleashed.
The Review
The movie is positioned as a “comedy/horror”, along the lines of “Shaun of the Dead”. The film also has Frost and Pegg as executive producers and they also have starring roles in the film. But there the similarities really end: this is a “Cornetto film” without a cone of solid chocolate lurking at the bottom to enjoy.
The script (by director Crispian Mills and first-time screenwriter Henry Fitzherbert) is nowhere near as sharp as the Frost/Pegg scripts for their famous collaborations. The story overall makes precious little sense: it’s a hodge-podge of elements from many Harry Potter films (especially “The Chamber of Secrets”), Lindsay Anderson’s “If…”; and Roy Boulting’s “The Guinea Pig”; with also a sprinkling of the anarchic essence of Michael Palin’s classic “Tomkinson’s Schooldays”. The whole thing never manages to gel into a cohesive whole.
After the second reel, the film completely loses sight of the plot: there’s a whole lot of running, screaming and dying going on but there’s little logic behind any of it that I could fathom. What didn’t help my comprehension of what was going on were some ‘Cornetto-esque’ sequences of manic editing. Images were thrown onto the screen so subliminally that any clever nuance was lost. I’m sure at one point there was a droll (if gross) segue at a “Roman orgy” of a girl receiving oral sex before being ‘eaten out’ in an entirely different way. But you would need a Blu-ray and a frame-by-frame pause function to get the joke.
That’s not to say that I didn’t laugh a few times along the way. There are some sight gags – for example, Wooten (Kit Connor) as the lad at the bottom of the bullying pecking order, chained to a U-bend – that made me laugh, and some running jokes – for example, Frost as the head of the anti-fracking camp offering the kids drugs at every encounter – that mildly amuse. But once again here’s a British comedy that, like the atrocious “The Brits are Coming“, thinks that “funny” largely revolves around swearing a lot – how useful that “frack” sounds so similar to another word – with added bodily dismemberment.
The turns
Pegg and Frost ham it up with their usual comedy schtick well enough, and it was quite fun to see Sheen try a comedy role for a change as the conniving and supercilious headmaster. Elsewhere all the young cast put their hearts into it, but it’s again Asa Butterfield that your eyes gravitate to, due to his striking features. I last saw Asa in the excellent if harrowing WW1 drama “Journey’s End“, and he here proves again that he is a One Mann’s Movies ‘name to watch for the future’.
Final thoughts
There’s a lot to irritate in this film. From the “z” in the title to… well… about 80% of the film. There is no nuance or subtlety to either the writing or the direction. I think that’s a great shame. The film has a good premise hidden in there. An adult comedy set around the ridiculous rules and rites of public schools (away from the light nonsense of “St Trinians”) is overdue. And the whole subject of fracking, and the conflicts surrounding the controversial techniques, hasn’t yet – to my knowledge – been explored in a fictional movie. The film does have a few very funny moments. But as a whole I left the cinema with that “wasted two hours” feeling. Not recommended.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Into the Water in Books
Jan 10, 2018
No big surprises (1 more)
Confusing POV
Not a bad book, but not a great one either
When the police show up at her door, Jules Abbott knows it isn't good news, but she isn't expecting this. Her older sister, Nel is dead--drowned in the lake known as the Drowning Pool back in their hometown. Jules has always vowed to never return to that place, but she finds herself back: in her childhood home, where Nel lived with her fifteen-year-old daughter, Lena. The assumption is that Nel committed suicide in the Pool, but Jules knows that isn't possible. Even though she hasn't seen her sister for years, she is convinced her water-loving sibling would never willingly die in the water. Meanwhile, Jules discovers that Nel was looking into other local residents who died at the Drowning Pool over the years for a book she was writing. What exactly happened to them--and Nel?
It's never easy to follow up a blockbuster like The Girl on the Train - I cannot even imagine the pressure. I didn't adore that book, but I do remember that I basically read it in one sitting. That wasn't the case with INTO THE WATER, though in its defense, I read it during an extremely busy period with work, where I basically collapsed in bed each night to read a few chapters.
This is not a bad book, but it wasn't a great one, either. It's not one that will stay with me. For one thing, much of its plot is predicated around one of my most reviled literary pet peeves: ridiculous miscommunication. You know, that whole thing where if the characters would just talk to each other, as normal folks do, for about 5 minutes, we wouldn't have to go through any of this? Yes. That. So that irritated me to no end.
There are also a lot of points of view in this book. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly took a while to keep everyone straight. I was glad I was reading this as an actual book, so I could flip back and see whom I'd been reading about earlier. Slogging through those early portions of many characters slowed things down for me and made it harder to get into the story.
As I said, it's not a bad book. I enjoyed reading it. The storyline is fairly interesting, overall, and it held my attention, even when I was pretty tired. I had a pretty decent suspicion of "whodunnit" fairly early on and turned out to be correct, but about halfway through, I was still second-guessing myself and pretty captivated. Nel, Jules, and Lena are intriguing characters, if not fairly frustrating in their lack of ability to talk to one another.
Still, overall, I was left feeling a little deflated by this one. There was no big "gasp" moment for me (perhaps because I had a decent inkling what had happened early on?) like GIRL. It was just a fairly good thriller that kept me entertained for a few days.
It's never easy to follow up a blockbuster like The Girl on the Train - I cannot even imagine the pressure. I didn't adore that book, but I do remember that I basically read it in one sitting. That wasn't the case with INTO THE WATER, though in its defense, I read it during an extremely busy period with work, where I basically collapsed in bed each night to read a few chapters.
This is not a bad book, but it wasn't a great one, either. It's not one that will stay with me. For one thing, much of its plot is predicated around one of my most reviled literary pet peeves: ridiculous miscommunication. You know, that whole thing where if the characters would just talk to each other, as normal folks do, for about 5 minutes, we wouldn't have to go through any of this? Yes. That. So that irritated me to no end.
There are also a lot of points of view in this book. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly took a while to keep everyone straight. I was glad I was reading this as an actual book, so I could flip back and see whom I'd been reading about earlier. Slogging through those early portions of many characters slowed things down for me and made it harder to get into the story.
As I said, it's not a bad book. I enjoyed reading it. The storyline is fairly interesting, overall, and it held my attention, even when I was pretty tired. I had a pretty decent suspicion of "whodunnit" fairly early on and turned out to be correct, but about halfway through, I was still second-guessing myself and pretty captivated. Nel, Jules, and Lena are intriguing characters, if not fairly frustrating in their lack of ability to talk to one another.
Still, overall, I was left feeling a little deflated by this one. There was no big "gasp" moment for me (perhaps because I had a decent inkling what had happened early on?) like GIRL. It was just a fairly good thriller that kept me entertained for a few days.
Pumpka (57 KP) rated Cards Against Humanity in Tabletop Games
Aug 15, 2019
Humour (2 more)
player count is high
a game specifically tailored to party people
creativity is limited (2 more)
often a popularity contest
multiple plays decreases the enjoyment of play
Here comes an unpopular opinion - hear me out
now - don't get me wrong, my first time playing Card against Humanity was hilarious! I loved it, I was in. The concept is very simple, you're presented with a silly, funny or rude situation and you have to fill in the blanks using the inappropriate cards from your hand to make the others laugh.
NOW
On MANY plays later, I see the flaw in this design. I've realised this is more of an activity than a game as such. Again, don't go pointing fingers too fast, I did enjoy the game at the start remember? Now, theres an AI built into the game called 'Rando' he can play too for various reasons and he can often win. As suggested, random cards are drawn, and because it usually doesn't make sense, its funny, and therefore wins! This made me realise that I'm not funny. Damn, I've been caught in this web of lies cards against humanity had me caught in. I have very limited choice and often my choices are a result of a card "dump" where really nothing was funny nor fit. A well thought out game might have a mechanic that allows me to do something else with these cards that maybe I don't see use for. So I'm not the one being funny, the predisposed topics and cards are just used as a shock factor -
which promptly brings me to my next point, these things and statements are often funny because you're shocked! THAT is in a card game, woaaah I'm such an adult, wow. No. sadly this may be funny the first time but there's only so many times I can see the "chunks of a dead hooker" card before it looses it's humorous effect. I've played with all of the expansions (which were available before I quit on this game) which was a fair few, and even then it wasn't enough.
The buzz was gone, and I no longer enjoy this game, I've not grown out of it, I'm not a humour buzzkill. There are many other similar style games that provide ample creativity. Now before one of you thinks it, yes, there are blank cards to write on, but it's often not enough to change and sustain the games core.
One more thing before I sign off on this one, it's often a popularity contest. I'm not the most popular in our gaming group, there are certainly people who will favour others and thats normal and fine. BUT when games like this swing around and the winner is essentially cast on a vote of the other players choosing. The winner can often be the same person again, and again and again. Because them putting cards down that were drawn out of a stack randomly and they had no input into the outcome of what those cards says was totally hilarious. They win again.
To summerise, creativity is so limited, it's not YOU being funny, it's the cards. It's not really that re-playable and it's often a popularity contest,
there are many other games of this genre that do it better.
NOW
On MANY plays later, I see the flaw in this design. I've realised this is more of an activity than a game as such. Again, don't go pointing fingers too fast, I did enjoy the game at the start remember? Now, theres an AI built into the game called 'Rando' he can play too for various reasons and he can often win. As suggested, random cards are drawn, and because it usually doesn't make sense, its funny, and therefore wins! This made me realise that I'm not funny. Damn, I've been caught in this web of lies cards against humanity had me caught in. I have very limited choice and often my choices are a result of a card "dump" where really nothing was funny nor fit. A well thought out game might have a mechanic that allows me to do something else with these cards that maybe I don't see use for. So I'm not the one being funny, the predisposed topics and cards are just used as a shock factor -
which promptly brings me to my next point, these things and statements are often funny because you're shocked! THAT is in a card game, woaaah I'm such an adult, wow. No. sadly this may be funny the first time but there's only so many times I can see the "chunks of a dead hooker" card before it looses it's humorous effect. I've played with all of the expansions (which were available before I quit on this game) which was a fair few, and even then it wasn't enough.
The buzz was gone, and I no longer enjoy this game, I've not grown out of it, I'm not a humour buzzkill. There are many other similar style games that provide ample creativity. Now before one of you thinks it, yes, there are blank cards to write on, but it's often not enough to change and sustain the games core.
One more thing before I sign off on this one, it's often a popularity contest. I'm not the most popular in our gaming group, there are certainly people who will favour others and thats normal and fine. BUT when games like this swing around and the winner is essentially cast on a vote of the other players choosing. The winner can often be the same person again, and again and again. Because them putting cards down that were drawn out of a stack randomly and they had no input into the outcome of what those cards says was totally hilarious. They win again.
To summerise, creativity is so limited, it's not YOU being funny, it's the cards. It's not really that re-playable and it's often a popularity contest,
there are many other games of this genre that do it better.
Comix Zone Classic
Games, Entertainment and Stickers
App
Enter the Comix Zone, in SEGA's classic arcade-style beat 'em up, now available on mobile for the...
Rachel King (13 KP) rated American Gods in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I have only ever read one other adult book ( I don't count Coraline) by Gaiman, which was vastly different from this book in both style and mood - Stardust. A friend recommended I read this book many years ago since I like mythology. I found this book really had not much to do with mythology in the classic sense. Instead the characters that were pulled from mythology, such as Odin, Anansi, Horus, Bast, and Ganesha, among others, behaved like has-been D-list celebrities that struggle to survive in a country that is repeatedly described as "...a bad land for gods." The powers they rarely put on display were minimal and amounted to the same kind of "magic" as a skilled pick-pocket, con-artist, or amateur magician. The few times any real power is observed is once during the sexual scene of a re-invented Queen of Sheba (I'll spare you the R-rated details) and when the gods travel "behind the scenes," a state of existence that only the gods can enter.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
Tim McGuire (301 KP) rated S.F.W. (1994) in Movies
Jan 7, 2020
374. S.F.W. One of my fave movie of the 90s. I recently noticed that it was based on a novel. Read it, rewatched movie, and it was still dope... One day Cliff Spab and his best friend since birth Joe Dice head into a convenience store for smokes and beer. Unluckily for them this was also the day that a terrorist organization called Split Image decide to take the place over, and everyone that happened to be in the store as hostages. The masked men are also filming them the entire time, pretty much keeping track of them losing their minds, after all, they've only been eating junk food and beer for the past month. Obvi they make it out after putting up a fight when they've reached the end of their ropes. However, only two make it out alive, Cliff, who everyone calls Spab and a upper class young woman, Wendy. The tale starts at the end of the hostage crisis. Upon escape, Spab and Wendy realize they are now celebrities, every night on TV, millions watched the events unfold in the store. Cliff puts on a brave smart ass attitude making the public love him more, but inside he's suffering some ptsd, and he just wants to disappear. His family use him for the fame, his friends use him for the fame. His one true friend is dead. And the only one he can share any of this with is Wendy, and they are being kept apart by fame, family and all of that. Movie gives you a look at our news becoming just pure entertainment, based on money and popularity. And this was before the internet. Stephen Dorff as Spab and Reese Witherspoon as Wendy were awesome in this dark comedy, with a freaking kick ass soundtrack! Check it out! Filmbufftim on FB.