Search
Search results
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My Unfair Lady in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Unfair Lady by Kathryne Kennedy
Genre: Historical fiction, Historical Romance
Rating: 4/5
Summary (from the back of the book):
HE CREATED THE PERFECT WOMAN… the impoverished Duke of Monchester despises the rich Americans who flock to London, seeking to buy their way into the ranks of the British peerage. So when railroad heiress Summer Wine Lee offers him a king’s ransom if he’ll teach her to become a proper lady, he’s prepared to rebuff her. But when he meets the petite beauty with the knife in her boot, it’s not her fortune he finds impossible to resist…
…FOR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER MAN. Frontier-bred Summer Wine Lee has no interest in winning over London society—it’s the New York bluebloods and her future mother-in-law she’s determined to impress. She knows the cost of smoothing her rough-and-tumble frontier edges will be high. But she never imagined it might cost her her heart…
Review: This book is so cute! The dialogue is lively, the characters are likeable (or in the case of the “bad ones”, hate-able), and the images and descriptions are clear and visible. I loved it by the end of the first chapter.
Summer was my kind of girl. She grinned when things were funny instead of trying to remain indifferent, she wasn’t afraid to show how she felt—but she could also throw a knife, shoot an arrow better than the woman champion of their day, and mount and ride a horse bareback (which I think is so cool!). She has a love for animals—and odd ones at that. She owns a three-legged dog, a dog with four legs but the size of a small horse, a monkey, a pocket-sized puppy, a fox, and a cat with no back legs (it sits in a cart and rolls around the room). She was raised by an Indian (one of those childhood dreams that I never quite left behind…) and he was the one who had taught her all that great stuff. Watching her try to settle into society was hilarious.
MY UNFAIR LADY has a lot of tension in it—both inner turmoil from poor Summer, and also sexual tension between the characters. However, it wasn’t overpowering because was so funny. I found that I laughed just as often as tension was built, so there was a constant, even balance. The end was very exciting, and I found it impossible to put down. Overall, reading this book was a hilarious and wonderful experience, and an unforgettable escape from reality.
Plot: My Fair Lady (the movie) shows a girl who is transformed to a lady, then the man falls in love with her. I love the change that has taken place in MY UNFAIR LADY—The man doesn’t want to change her, because he loves her the way she is. I like this plot better than the first!
Writing: The writing was decent, acceptable, and more readable than a lot of newly published romances. Though it wasn’t Dante, it wasn’t hard to read either.
Content: Refreshingly, there was no language in this book. Summer has her own set of expletives, but they weren’t offensive (“Tarnation!”). As far as sex, let’s just say there were several scenes (pages) in this book that I skipped completely, and just started reading again where the dialogue picked up. I didn’t miss anything important.
Recommendation: Ages 18+ to lovers of Historical fiction, Romance in general, or anyone who loves a girl who can shoot a gun, wield a knife, or use a bow and arrow better than a man!
**Thanks to Danielle at Sourcebooks for supplying my review copy!**
Genre: Historical fiction, Historical Romance
Rating: 4/5
Summary (from the back of the book):
HE CREATED THE PERFECT WOMAN… the impoverished Duke of Monchester despises the rich Americans who flock to London, seeking to buy their way into the ranks of the British peerage. So when railroad heiress Summer Wine Lee offers him a king’s ransom if he’ll teach her to become a proper lady, he’s prepared to rebuff her. But when he meets the petite beauty with the knife in her boot, it’s not her fortune he finds impossible to resist…
…FOR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER MAN. Frontier-bred Summer Wine Lee has no interest in winning over London society—it’s the New York bluebloods and her future mother-in-law she’s determined to impress. She knows the cost of smoothing her rough-and-tumble frontier edges will be high. But she never imagined it might cost her her heart…
Review: This book is so cute! The dialogue is lively, the characters are likeable (or in the case of the “bad ones”, hate-able), and the images and descriptions are clear and visible. I loved it by the end of the first chapter.
Summer was my kind of girl. She grinned when things were funny instead of trying to remain indifferent, she wasn’t afraid to show how she felt—but she could also throw a knife, shoot an arrow better than the woman champion of their day, and mount and ride a horse bareback (which I think is so cool!). She has a love for animals—and odd ones at that. She owns a three-legged dog, a dog with four legs but the size of a small horse, a monkey, a pocket-sized puppy, a fox, and a cat with no back legs (it sits in a cart and rolls around the room). She was raised by an Indian (one of those childhood dreams that I never quite left behind…) and he was the one who had taught her all that great stuff. Watching her try to settle into society was hilarious.
MY UNFAIR LADY has a lot of tension in it—both inner turmoil from poor Summer, and also sexual tension between the characters. However, it wasn’t overpowering because was so funny. I found that I laughed just as often as tension was built, so there was a constant, even balance. The end was very exciting, and I found it impossible to put down. Overall, reading this book was a hilarious and wonderful experience, and an unforgettable escape from reality.
Plot: My Fair Lady (the movie) shows a girl who is transformed to a lady, then the man falls in love with her. I love the change that has taken place in MY UNFAIR LADY—The man doesn’t want to change her, because he loves her the way she is. I like this plot better than the first!
Writing: The writing was decent, acceptable, and more readable than a lot of newly published romances. Though it wasn’t Dante, it wasn’t hard to read either.
Content: Refreshingly, there was no language in this book. Summer has her own set of expletives, but they weren’t offensive (“Tarnation!”). As far as sex, let’s just say there were several scenes (pages) in this book that I skipped completely, and just started reading again where the dialogue picked up. I didn’t miss anything important.
Recommendation: Ages 18+ to lovers of Historical fiction, Romance in general, or anyone who loves a girl who can shoot a gun, wield a knife, or use a bow and arrow better than a man!
**Thanks to Danielle at Sourcebooks for supplying my review copy!**
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Not a very fun game
The horror film market is huge. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horror films are made every year, with only few standing out of the blood-drenched crowd. Netflix, with a penchant for outstanding horrors and thrillers, decided to hop on the horror flick train, bringing about an adaptation of Stephen King’s terrifying novel ‘Gerald’s Game’.
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
This is both a very unique and fairly faithful retelling of the classic Beauty and the Beast fairytale. Hunted takes place in Russia and our main character Yeva (Beauty) is a huntress. She is headstrong, kind, caring, has a bit of a temper and can be vengeful - but overall I quite liked her character.
Like the classic tale, Beauty is the youngest of three sisters and daughter of a merchant. In some versions, she also has three brothers and her sisters are unkind - but that is not the case in this retelling. They live in a nice house until a shipping gamble costs them everything. They are forced to move to their father's old hunting cabin, which is a three-day walk from their current home. Her father used to be a hunter, but his wife believed that it was too dangerous and asked him to stop. Despite that, as a child Beauty was allowed to go hunting with her father and learned to love it. Unfortunately, as she grew her father decided that it was not the way a lady should purport herself and no longer allowed her to hunt.
After the loss of their fortune, Yeva and her family must learn to make due with less. Her father takes up hunting again and goes off to catch game for them to store for the winter. Unfortunately, when he returns he is distraught and swears that the Beast he saw when he was younger is stalking him. When he doesn't return from his second trip, Yeva sets out to find him and this is where the story adopts some significantly different elements from the original tale.
In the original, the father enters a castle and accepts his host's hospitality, but upon leaving takes a single rose for his daughter Beauty and is told he has a choice. He shall either be condemned to death for it or he must stay in the castle. While these are not the events that lead to Yeva's time in the castle, nevertheless she ends up imprisoned there. Over time, she and the Beast grow to know one another - but her treatment isn't as kind overall as the original.
I really enjoyed the tales that Yeva told while she was in captivity because they built the lore of the world and gave us a look into what the characters had grown up listening to. Although Yeva spent most of her time as the castle, I do wish that we were able to get to know the other characters like her sisters a little better. They seem very kind, but relatively one-dimensional. As a result of the Beast's curse, I don't feel like we got to know him as well as we could have. I would have loved to watch him grow and connect with him as Yeva does so that I could feel that </i>yes, they could fall in love.</i> I liked Yeva, but her dog Doe-Eyes was probably my favourite character. The dog was so cheerful and loyal that you couldn't help but love her.
The world that Yeva knows is not one we get to see very often in young adult literature. It is a melding of Russia, with its unique environment and folklore, with a more fantastical world. Yeva tells tales of the Firebird, sees a creature that is half dragon and half woman, and learns to listen to the music of that other world. The world itself reminds me a lot of the Grisha trilogy, although the plots and characters are nothing alike. I would love to experience more of the lore that built this enchanted world in the form of novellas.
I would highly recommend this to young adult/teen readers who enjoy fairytales and retellings, especially ones with a unique take on the tale that includes a lot of culture and lore.
Like the classic tale, Beauty is the youngest of three sisters and daughter of a merchant. In some versions, she also has three brothers and her sisters are unkind - but that is not the case in this retelling. They live in a nice house until a shipping gamble costs them everything. They are forced to move to their father's old hunting cabin, which is a three-day walk from their current home. Her father used to be a hunter, but his wife believed that it was too dangerous and asked him to stop. Despite that, as a child Beauty was allowed to go hunting with her father and learned to love it. Unfortunately, as she grew her father decided that it was not the way a lady should purport herself and no longer allowed her to hunt.
After the loss of their fortune, Yeva and her family must learn to make due with less. Her father takes up hunting again and goes off to catch game for them to store for the winter. Unfortunately, when he returns he is distraught and swears that the Beast he saw when he was younger is stalking him. When he doesn't return from his second trip, Yeva sets out to find him and this is where the story adopts some significantly different elements from the original tale.
In the original, the father enters a castle and accepts his host's hospitality, but upon leaving takes a single rose for his daughter Beauty and is told he has a choice. He shall either be condemned to death for it or he must stay in the castle. While these are not the events that lead to Yeva's time in the castle, nevertheless she ends up imprisoned there. Over time, she and the Beast grow to know one another - but her treatment isn't as kind overall as the original.
I really enjoyed the tales that Yeva told while she was in captivity because they built the lore of the world and gave us a look into what the characters had grown up listening to. Although Yeva spent most of her time as the castle, I do wish that we were able to get to know the other characters like her sisters a little better. They seem very kind, but relatively one-dimensional. As a result of the Beast's curse, I don't feel like we got to know him as well as we could have. I would have loved to watch him grow and connect with him as Yeva does so that I could feel that </i>yes, they could fall in love.</i> I liked Yeva, but her dog Doe-Eyes was probably my favourite character. The dog was so cheerful and loyal that you couldn't help but love her.
The world that Yeva knows is not one we get to see very often in young adult literature. It is a melding of Russia, with its unique environment and folklore, with a more fantastical world. Yeva tells tales of the Firebird, sees a creature that is half dragon and half woman, and learns to listen to the music of that other world. The world itself reminds me a lot of the Grisha trilogy, although the plots and characters are nothing alike. I would love to experience more of the lore that built this enchanted world in the form of novellas.
I would highly recommend this to young adult/teen readers who enjoy fairytales and retellings, especially ones with a unique take on the tale that includes a lot of culture and lore.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Z For Zachariah (2015) in Movies
Jul 6, 2019
Director: Craig Zobel
Writer: Nissar Modi (Screenplay) Robert C O’Brien (Novel)
Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Margot Robbie, Chris Pine
Plot: In the wake of a disaster that wipes out most of civilization, two men and a young woman find themselves in an emotionally charged love triangle as the last known survivors.
Tagline – What remains after the world ends?..
Runtime: 1 Hour 36 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: Starts Promising, Ends Slow
Story: Z for Zachariah starts as Ann (Robbie) goes about her daily routine in a disaster hit world, living on a farm with her dog, she does everything she can just to survive, until she sees a stranger wondering through the mountain range, John (Ejiofor) who was underground during the incident.
Ann and John start trying to put a life together using his knowledge of engineering to help with the work around the farm until another stranger, a miner Caleb (Pine) turns up on the land, which starts to create a new problem, a love triangle.
Thoughts on Z for Zachariah
Characters – Ann is a farm girl that has been with just her dog since the incident that has wiped out most of the population, she is keeps the land together preparing for the harsh winters which she barely made it through before, she does have the lonely feeling until she meet John and Caleb who help show her life after people. John I a scientist who was underground when the incident happened, he decides to come to the surface in search of a life up there, which sees him stumble into Ann’s land, the two might have difference of opinions when it comes to religion and science, but they do try to help make a life together, he uses his skills to help make the farm work easier. Caleb is a miner that ends up on the land, he becomes competition for John in search for attention from Ann, being much more laidback about life and where it will go next.
Performances – The performances are the highlight of this film, Margot Robbie, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Chris Pine all give us wonderful performances, showing the difficult moments they would have been through in this world, we see guilt and hope coming through strong through the performances.
Story – The story follows three people living in a world destroyed by an incident (which we never learn what it is) that has left most of the population dead, with most of land being unliveable and then we get thrown into a love triangle. The side of the story that explores the world that has been through an incident because we start to explore what could have caused it taking science version religion, as soon as we start getting to the love triangle things just get dragged down because we don’t need this, as we do have the complex side to the story already in place.
Sci-Fi – The world that we enter shows us the sci-fi side of the film by seeing just how difficult surviving would be in this world, only it would be nice to have learnt what happened to cause the incident.
Settings – The film does take us to a beautiful location which give us stunning shots, making it a lovely place to live in a world like this.
Scene of the Movie – The water system.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning what has happened to the world.
Final Thoughts – This is a film that starts so well, only to fall into a bland love triangle which only drags all the potential away from this story.
Overall: Doesn’t live up to potential.
Rating
Writer: Nissar Modi (Screenplay) Robert C O’Brien (Novel)
Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Margot Robbie, Chris Pine
Plot: In the wake of a disaster that wipes out most of civilization, two men and a young woman find themselves in an emotionally charged love triangle as the last known survivors.
Tagline – What remains after the world ends?..
Runtime: 1 Hour 36 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: Starts Promising, Ends Slow
Story: Z for Zachariah starts as Ann (Robbie) goes about her daily routine in a disaster hit world, living on a farm with her dog, she does everything she can just to survive, until she sees a stranger wondering through the mountain range, John (Ejiofor) who was underground during the incident.
Ann and John start trying to put a life together using his knowledge of engineering to help with the work around the farm until another stranger, a miner Caleb (Pine) turns up on the land, which starts to create a new problem, a love triangle.
Thoughts on Z for Zachariah
Characters – Ann is a farm girl that has been with just her dog since the incident that has wiped out most of the population, she is keeps the land together preparing for the harsh winters which she barely made it through before, she does have the lonely feeling until she meet John and Caleb who help show her life after people. John I a scientist who was underground when the incident happened, he decides to come to the surface in search of a life up there, which sees him stumble into Ann’s land, the two might have difference of opinions when it comes to religion and science, but they do try to help make a life together, he uses his skills to help make the farm work easier. Caleb is a miner that ends up on the land, he becomes competition for John in search for attention from Ann, being much more laidback about life and where it will go next.
Performances – The performances are the highlight of this film, Margot Robbie, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Chris Pine all give us wonderful performances, showing the difficult moments they would have been through in this world, we see guilt and hope coming through strong through the performances.
Story – The story follows three people living in a world destroyed by an incident (which we never learn what it is) that has left most of the population dead, with most of land being unliveable and then we get thrown into a love triangle. The side of the story that explores the world that has been through an incident because we start to explore what could have caused it taking science version religion, as soon as we start getting to the love triangle things just get dragged down because we don’t need this, as we do have the complex side to the story already in place.
Sci-Fi – The world that we enter shows us the sci-fi side of the film by seeing just how difficult surviving would be in this world, only it would be nice to have learnt what happened to cause the incident.
Settings – The film does take us to a beautiful location which give us stunning shots, making it a lovely place to live in a world like this.
Scene of the Movie – The water system.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning what has happened to the world.
Final Thoughts – This is a film that starts so well, only to fall into a bland love triangle which only drags all the potential away from this story.
Overall: Doesn’t live up to potential.
Rating
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Seven Psychopaths (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Unfamiliar with writer and director Martin McDonagh’s previous gangster film In Burges, I was not exactly sure what I was getting into when watching Seven Psychopaths. I had seen a few trailers and was looking forward to what looked like a quirky new movie that I hoped delivered at least a few solid one-liners but was not expecting much more. Well, I am delighted to say that McDonagh delivers a fantastic self-referential crime caper that is one part Pulp Fiction and one part a meta episode of NBC’s TV show Community.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
Camping With Grandpa
Education and Games
App
Hey, campers! Who wants to roast a marshmallow and eat a s’more? Grab a stick and join Grandpa on...
Bedtime Stories For Children
Education and Book
App
**** 180+ New Stories Added **** Story time is learning time with 'Stories For Children: Bedtime...
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 23, 2020
You Won't Find A Better Game In Terms Of Presentation. (4 more)
Level Design Is Astounding.
Like The First Game, This Will Create A Conversation For Years To Come
Sound Design Is Incredible.
Takes Risks, And Some Do Pay Off.
A Flawed Sequel. (4 more)
Awful Pacing.
Structure Of Narrative Is Bad.
Some Terrible Dialogue.
Shoehorned Agenda.
The last of The Last of Us.
The video game industry doesn't get enough credit as a source of entertainment, in my humble opinion. Time and time again, the industry has proven that it can produce something magical, memorable, mesmerising to play, and even more so, something engaging to watch as someone not even holding the controller. Naughty Dog’s 2013 masterpiece, The Last of Us, became an overnight classic game because it was cinematic in presentation, and a rollercoaster of emotions in narrative. I sat and played the remastered version on my PlayStation 4 in 2017, and fell in love with the chemistry, love and heartbreak Joel and Ellie took with them, as they crossed a post-apocalyptic America. I was satisfied with the conclusion, and felt the story of these two characters was finished. I didn't need, or ever want a sequel. Then a few months pass, The Last of Us Part II is announced. Obviously, I was ecstatic, but also concerned. Trailers came and went, delays happened over and over, and leaks began to drip onto the internet. I was even more concerned with the leaks, and how this game was taking shape, but I remained open minded, and began playing the game.
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
Ross (3284 KP) rated Stranger Things - Season 2 in TV
Nov 17, 2017
A great series following on from the ground-breaking first. Extra characters are revealed and the current characters are explored in more detail as they grow and mature. The addition of Paul Reiser and Sean Astin was simply inspired, somehow managing to conjure up memories of Aliens, The Goonies, LoTR and ... erm ... My Two Dads.
There are the usual geeky references here and there (the boys dressed as ghostbusters and awkwardly discussing why Lucas should be Winston; Eleven wanting to wear the same Halloween costume as ET etc etc).
The action was a little slow to get going in the first few episodes, but it was still enjoyable viewing all the same, getting the chance to see the boys in action without the fear or tension from the events of the first series.
I feel a bit sorry for the actor playing Will - he is a bit like Doug from The Hangover - barely there and when he is there he is quite weedy and annoying.
For me Hopper was the star of the series showing his paternal side with Eleven while still being the strong leader/father figure that some of the boys don't have.
The only slight negative I had was the timeline of the DemaDog's growth - it seemed to take almost a year for the slug that Will coughed up to grow to the size of a frog and then from there it became dog-sized in a matter of days. Unless these were separate creatures and I have mistaken this but, a la Prometheus, this wasn't all that well explained. It could just be the incredible nutritious qualities of nougat.
All in all another excellent series and a taste of more to come, possibly with Max's brother (a dead-ringer for Jason Patric in The Lost Boys) and Dustin (with his Corey Haim hair at the Snow Ball) teaming up to battle vampires.
There are the usual geeky references here and there (the boys dressed as ghostbusters and awkwardly discussing why Lucas should be Winston; Eleven wanting to wear the same Halloween costume as ET etc etc).
The action was a little slow to get going in the first few episodes, but it was still enjoyable viewing all the same, getting the chance to see the boys in action without the fear or tension from the events of the first series.
I feel a bit sorry for the actor playing Will - he is a bit like Doug from The Hangover - barely there and when he is there he is quite weedy and annoying.
For me Hopper was the star of the series showing his paternal side with Eleven while still being the strong leader/father figure that some of the boys don't have.
The only slight negative I had was the timeline of the DemaDog's growth - it seemed to take almost a year for the slug that Will coughed up to grow to the size of a frog and then from there it became dog-sized in a matter of days. Unless these were separate creatures and I have mistaken this but, a la Prometheus, this wasn't all that well explained. It could just be the incredible nutritious qualities of nougat.
All in all another excellent series and a taste of more to come, possibly with Max's brother (a dead-ringer for Jason Patric in The Lost Boys) and Dustin (with his Corey Haim hair at the Snow Ball) teaming up to battle vampires.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Foreigner (2017) in Movies
Dec 20, 2017
Boooo
If you're expecting me to say something nice about The Foreigner, please do us both a favor and click out of this review right now. On paper, it appears to be right up Jackie Chan's alley. After his daughter is killed in a terrorist attack, Quan (Jackie) is trying to hunt down the men that did it. He is willing to stop at nothing to get his revenge.
The formulaic aspect of the film ruins the entire experience. Here's the rundown: Jackie walks into Pierce Brosnan's office demanding names (Who did this????). When Brosnan is not forthcoming with the names, Jackie storms off usually doing something crazy in his departure. Brosnan sends men to take Jackie down. Jackie beats the crap out of them. When the men return, Brosnan asks, "How the hell did you get your ass kicked by this old man?"
Rinse and repeat.
I'm serious, it's so ridiculous at times it becomes almost comical. You would think with this straight-arrow formula, the film would be easy to follow, but there are a lot of moving parts and I mean A LOT. I found myself saying, "Say what now?" too many times to count. I don't know, maybe it was more of a lack of interest than confusion on my part. Blade Runner 2049 had a number of things going on throughout and it's one of the best films I've seen all year.
The Foreigner is one of those films where you think of all the other things you could be doing instead of watching it. Folding clothes. Grocery shopping. Picking boogers. Screaming at your dog to get out of the trash. I mean, ANYTHING else. Could a few solid action sequences have saved the film? Probably. Did it?
Nope.
I honestly don't know how this passed the smell test on Rotten Tomatoes. In the words of the wonderful Jay Sherman: It stinks. I give it a 42.
The formulaic aspect of the film ruins the entire experience. Here's the rundown: Jackie walks into Pierce Brosnan's office demanding names (Who did this????). When Brosnan is not forthcoming with the names, Jackie storms off usually doing something crazy in his departure. Brosnan sends men to take Jackie down. Jackie beats the crap out of them. When the men return, Brosnan asks, "How the hell did you get your ass kicked by this old man?"
Rinse and repeat.
I'm serious, it's so ridiculous at times it becomes almost comical. You would think with this straight-arrow formula, the film would be easy to follow, but there are a lot of moving parts and I mean A LOT. I found myself saying, "Say what now?" too many times to count. I don't know, maybe it was more of a lack of interest than confusion on my part. Blade Runner 2049 had a number of things going on throughout and it's one of the best films I've seen all year.
The Foreigner is one of those films where you think of all the other things you could be doing instead of watching it. Folding clothes. Grocery shopping. Picking boogers. Screaming at your dog to get out of the trash. I mean, ANYTHING else. Could a few solid action sequences have saved the film? Probably. Did it?
Nope.
I honestly don't know how this passed the smell test on Rotten Tomatoes. In the words of the wonderful Jay Sherman: It stinks. I give it a 42.