Search

Search only in certain items:

How to Lose a Fiancé
How to Lose a Fiancé
10
10.0 (1 Ratings)
Book Rating
Sophia is tired of being told how to live her life by her overbearing, overprotecting father. When he calls her into his office to let her know she will be sent to Greece to marry a stranger she has had enough. She doesn’t care that Dion’s acquisition of her father’s company will save their family, according to her father. She only wants her freedom. After thinking things through she decides to be the worst possible fiancé any one man could ever imagine. That way he’d be forced to send her home and she’d be free to follow her dreams.

Dion can’t believe he agreed to marry the daughter of the man in charge of the company he wants to acquire. His bastard of a biological fathers old company, but no one will know that little tidbit of information. He looked Sophia up online and she seemed to fit into the stereotypical corporate wife he needs. Too bad the walking disaster that heads over to him in the airport is not quite what he was expecting.

Part of Sophia’s plan involves dressing as wildly as she can without trying to look like she has gone off the deep end. The itchy woolen sweater she chose to change into when they landed only adds to the hideousness of it all. The look on Dion’s face is worth the itching. Now to fully put her plan into action, she must find a taxidermy fox.

Dion has no idea what to do with this hideous fox that has somehow made its way into his home. Soon hatching a plot with the fox we first encountered in book 1 How to win a fiance. He soon figures out what Sophia is actually up to and together they agree to find a common ground and go ahead with the wedding. Theirs could be a good friendship opportunity for each other, each getting what they desire in life.

Dion and Sophia have pasts and families that don’t lend themselves to Hallmark Movie Channel heart touching sentiment. Dion loses the one father figure he has, and Sophia’s actual father is lacking in just about every redeeming quality. They work through it together and make their own family ties. I voluntarily read and reviewed an advance reader copy without expectations. 4 ½ stars for this newest release from Ms. London.
  
Sisters (2015)
Sisters (2015)
2015 | Comedy, Drama
7
6.7 (6 Ratings)
Movie Rating
Life for sisters Maura (Amy Poehler), and Kate (Tina Fey) has not worked out the way they had planned. Maura is a nurse who lives in Atlanta and two years after her divorce is busy doing do-good projects and learning to make cheese in her spare time.,

Kate is a single mom who cannot hold a job and has recently been kicked out of the place she was living in. When their parents inform Maura that they are selling their childhood home, Maura helps Kate travel to Orlando in an effort to convince their parents to change their minds.

Seeing that the deal is pretty much done and that their parents are now in a condo, Maura and Kate opt to spend their time in their old home, and do whatever they can to discourage the prospective new buyers from following through on the purchase.

Kate has always been the wilder of the bunch and decides that Maura needs to let loose for once. As such they opt to recreate a party from their teens with as many of their former classmates as they can gather.

Naturally as anyone who has ever seen a house comedy knows, this is a disaster in the making as everything from drunken party games to a drug mishap and sex accidents follow.

It is different to hear Poehler and Fey use R-rated language as they have kept much of their career to the wink and a nod style of adult humor that their pioneered on Saturday Night Live but once you get used to it, it does not seem overly forced.

The two have a real chemistry and there are many funny scenes in the film, the biggest issue is the transition and setups can be a bit slow and at times awkward. This is to be expected from people who started in sketch comedy and neither of the two had a hand in writing the film as well.

Ike Barinholtz does great supporting work as a love interest and his “accident” is one of the funniest and most cringe worthy moments in film comedy.

If you can handle the slow parts and need some good laughs, then you will want to check out “Sisters’ as it is mindless and raunchy fun.

http://sknr.net/2015/12/18/sisters/
  
The Year of Living Dangerously (1983)
The Year of Living Dangerously (1983)
1983 | Drama
6
7.3 (3 Ratings)
Movie Rating
A Story That Falls Short
The Year of Living Dangerously follows the story of reporter Guy Hamilton (Mel Gibson) during a tumultuous time of civil unrest in Indonesia.

Acting: 10

Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.

Characters: 6

Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.

Conflict: 6

Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.

Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.

Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.

Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.

Resolution: 10

Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.
  
40x40

LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies

Aug 6, 2019 (Updated Aug 6, 2019)  
World War Z (2013)
World War Z (2013)
2013 | Action, Horror, Sci-Fi
World War Z - the movie that finally dared to make the zombie genre family friendly.
That premise sounds horrible on paper, but somehow, it's not too bad!
Zombie films as a rule of thumb, tend to have a slow build up, before all hell breaks loose, and were treated to over the top violence and gore.
Not the case here... WWZ takes no time at all to kick off, as Brad Pitt and his family find themselves stuck in traffic when the shit hits that fan. Were less than 5 minutes in at this time.
As mentioned, the gore is kept to a minimum, but that didn't bother me. WWZ is more a disaster film than horror, but instead of a tidal wave or a hurricane, the threat are the undead.
And there a lot of them. The zombies here run fast, and in huge numbers, making for some true spectacles as they climb on top of each other to climb buildings etc.
There are two set pieces that are particularly eye catching. The scene in Jerusalem, and the scene on the plane, are both pretty full on and entertaining.
The last quarter of the film is a bit puzzling.
After the aforementioned set pieces, the film really slows down for the last 25 minutes. It's not necessarily a bad move, but just a bit...odd for a Hollywood blockbuster.
The film ends rather abruptly (after feeling a little overlong) and on a freeze frame no less (shoot me now).

The cast are pretty good for the most part - I'm an absolutely unashamed fan of Brad Pitt. I've never seen him play a bad part, so his involvement was always going to be a winner for me.

I've never read the book of WWZ but from what I've heard, the movie sharply deviates from it, pretty much only sharing the title.
From what I've gathered about the books layout, it seems that the film could have explored so much more - it may even suit a series rather than a movie.

WWZ is not much more than a dumb, Hollywood action film, with a couple of jump scares thrown in, but it's pretty entertaining here and there.
And with David Fincher in the directors chair for a future sequel, I'm up for what comes next.