Search
The 1% Rule: How to Fall in Love with the Process and Achieve Your Wildest Dreams
Book
In a highlight reel, microwave world — we’re led to believe success is right around the corner. ...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy (Rooney Mara) thinks she's suffering from an average case of nightmares that are causing her to lose sleep. A burned man with blades on his fingers haunts her dreams. She doesn't think much of it until her friends start getting picked off one by one while they sleep and are dreaming of the same man. Something happened during their childhood that connects them to this man that their parents are trying to cover up. As far as anyone else is concerned, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) never existed. What their parents refuse to believe is that Freddy exists in the dreams of their children causing them to remember their past and kill them. Now it's up to Nancy and her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner) to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit before they become Freddy's next victims.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Has pixar got it's mojo back?
Pixar has been on something of a downward trend of late, and that’s something I never thought I’d say. As much as it hurts, films like Cars 3, Finding Dory and The Good Dinosaur just don’t cut the mustard when compared to some of the studio’s greats.
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
The Secret To Money
Lifestyle and Finance
App
The Secret to Money is an app that is designed to change the way you think about money, and to...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Taking on a movie as beloved as “The Wizard of Oz” is a daunting task. The iconic Judy Garland film is considered a classic and many of the songs from the film have remained part of our culture since it was released in 1939. Despite several book sequels, the attempts to continue the series have had little success as there have been animated films as well as an urban remake, “The Wiz”, which also failed to reach the success of the original. Director Sam Raimi opted to do an original prequel story that tells of how the fabled Wizard of Oz came to be.
Oz (James Franco), is a small-time magician toiling away in small circus in Kansas in 1905. Life on the road has allowed him to be a womanizer and an egomaniac who dreams of greatness. When his actions catch up with him, Oz is forced to flee and takes refuge from an angry mob in a hot air balloon. An unexpected storm funnel grabs the balloon, and whisks Oz to a dazzling and colorful world filled with all manner of strange creatures and wonders.
Upon his arrival, Oz is greeted by Theodora (Mila Kunis), who believes that Oz is the great wizard that legend has said will arrive to save the land and rule the people in a kind and just way. It is revealed that the land is under siege from a wicked witch, and a prophecy indicates a great wizard will arrive with the same name as the land, and will save the day.
Naturally Oz does not believe this but is more than willing to charm Theodora and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and plot to get his hands on the abundant gold that will come with his appointment as the great wizard. Oz learns that in order to take the throne, he has to defeat another witch (Michelle Williams), and sets off on a journey to the Dark Forest with his flying monkey companion Finley (Zach Braff). Along the journey, Oz learns first hand of the horrors the witch has unleashed on the unsuspecting and learns that his selfish behavior has serious consequences not just for himself, but for innocent people as well. This leads to some serious soul-searching and a confrontation that will force Oz to become the man that many believe he is, less they all perish.
The film has some great visuals as Raimi wisely shot the movie in 3D and mixed CGI with some very impressive sets. It is clear that much of the film is shot against a CGI backdrop but the visual wonder of the film is something to behold. The biggest issues I had with the film were that it was slow-paced and did drag in several parts. Franco does his best to play up the seedier side of Oz, but makes some very odd facial expressions throughout the film that seem very forced and out of place for the film and the situations he finds himself in. Kunis and Weisz make excellent witches and their backstory is a very interesting and an integral part of Dorothy’s adventures in the original film. Williams does well with her role but never seems to develop the needed chemistry with Franco. I was also surprised that the film was very light on musical numbers as there was only a hint of one that was quickly halted by Franco. “Oz: The Great and Powerful” is a visually enjoyable film that sets the stage well for the original film and Raimi is to be praised for taking on such sacred material and providing a new chapter for the modern generation. While it is not likely to be considered a classic like the original film, it is still a worthy chapter in the series which will provide good nostalgic entertainment for fans new and old alike.
Oz (James Franco), is a small-time magician toiling away in small circus in Kansas in 1905. Life on the road has allowed him to be a womanizer and an egomaniac who dreams of greatness. When his actions catch up with him, Oz is forced to flee and takes refuge from an angry mob in a hot air balloon. An unexpected storm funnel grabs the balloon, and whisks Oz to a dazzling and colorful world filled with all manner of strange creatures and wonders.
Upon his arrival, Oz is greeted by Theodora (Mila Kunis), who believes that Oz is the great wizard that legend has said will arrive to save the land and rule the people in a kind and just way. It is revealed that the land is under siege from a wicked witch, and a prophecy indicates a great wizard will arrive with the same name as the land, and will save the day.
Naturally Oz does not believe this but is more than willing to charm Theodora and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and plot to get his hands on the abundant gold that will come with his appointment as the great wizard. Oz learns that in order to take the throne, he has to defeat another witch (Michelle Williams), and sets off on a journey to the Dark Forest with his flying monkey companion Finley (Zach Braff). Along the journey, Oz learns first hand of the horrors the witch has unleashed on the unsuspecting and learns that his selfish behavior has serious consequences not just for himself, but for innocent people as well. This leads to some serious soul-searching and a confrontation that will force Oz to become the man that many believe he is, less they all perish.
The film has some great visuals as Raimi wisely shot the movie in 3D and mixed CGI with some very impressive sets. It is clear that much of the film is shot against a CGI backdrop but the visual wonder of the film is something to behold. The biggest issues I had with the film were that it was slow-paced and did drag in several parts. Franco does his best to play up the seedier side of Oz, but makes some very odd facial expressions throughout the film that seem very forced and out of place for the film and the situations he finds himself in. Kunis and Weisz make excellent witches and their backstory is a very interesting and an integral part of Dorothy’s adventures in the original film. Williams does well with her role but never seems to develop the needed chemistry with Franco. I was also surprised that the film was very light on musical numbers as there was only a hint of one that was quickly halted by Franco. “Oz: The Great and Powerful” is a visually enjoyable film that sets the stage well for the original film and Raimi is to be praised for taking on such sacred material and providing a new chapter for the modern generation. While it is not likely to be considered a classic like the original film, it is still a worthy chapter in the series which will provide good nostalgic entertainment for fans new and old alike.
ClareR (5603 KP) rated The Memory of Animals in Books
Jun 8, 2023
I’m completely braised. I love Claire Fullers writing, I’ve loved everything I’ve read by her and The Memory of Animals is no exception. And the fact that this could be described as a dystopian or even an apocalyptic novel made it even more fascinating. I love this genre - even though it usually enters my dreams and makes for an interesting nights sleep!
This is a pandemic novel - but not our pandemic, not Covid. This is a dropsy-type disease, where those infected swell up, their brains swell up too, they forget - and more often than not, they die.
Neffy (Nefeli) and a group of young people volunteer to be vaccinated against, and then infected by, the virus. Something goes wrong, and it looks as though Neffy and four other test volunteers are the only ones who are alive and well. But they can’t leave the building they’re in and the food is running out.
Neffy is a Marine Biologist, an Aquarist, and my favourite parts were her letters to ‘H’ as well as her flashbacks to childhood and pre-pandemic.
This isn’t *just* a speculative, science fiction book, it’s a story about the human condition, about the human drive to survive against the odds, regret, loss, grief, memory, love and above all, hope.
I could go on and on about this. I would never have expected a novel like this from Claire Fuller after reading her previous novels, but that’s what makes it even better. I actually read this twice (unheard of for me, actually). I finished it and immediately started reading again.
So yes, I would most definitely strongly recommend this book!
This is a pandemic novel - but not our pandemic, not Covid. This is a dropsy-type disease, where those infected swell up, their brains swell up too, they forget - and more often than not, they die.
Neffy (Nefeli) and a group of young people volunteer to be vaccinated against, and then infected by, the virus. Something goes wrong, and it looks as though Neffy and four other test volunteers are the only ones who are alive and well. But they can’t leave the building they’re in and the food is running out.
Neffy is a Marine Biologist, an Aquarist, and my favourite parts were her letters to ‘H’ as well as her flashbacks to childhood and pre-pandemic.
This isn’t *just* a speculative, science fiction book, it’s a story about the human condition, about the human drive to survive against the odds, regret, loss, grief, memory, love and above all, hope.
I could go on and on about this. I would never have expected a novel like this from Claire Fuller after reading her previous novels, but that’s what makes it even better. I actually read this twice (unheard of for me, actually). I finished it and immediately started reading again.
So yes, I would most definitely strongly recommend this book!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Too Good To Be Real: A Novel in Books
Jul 22, 2021
A very meta romantic comedy
Julia is a writer desperate to save her job. She's tired of posting nothing but quizzes and lists. So she pitches an article to her boss in an attempt to save her job: a new resort that's letting its guests live out their romantic comedy dreams via role playing. Julia doesn't believe in love, of course, but she'll play along if it means keeping her job. But when she and her two best friends show up, she meets a handsome man by the lake via the quintessential meet-cute: a humorous seagull incident. She thinks Luke is taking part in the rom-com experience, but he's actually one of the event planners, along with his best friend and sister. Luke decides to take part in the experience in order to impress a reviewer arriving. Sparks fly between the two, but can their love be real when no one is being honest about who they are?
"I'm as likely to find the wardrobe to Narnia as I am to find my own Mark Darcy. Life isn't like a romantic comedy."
This was a perfectly cute romantic comedy and it's important to remember that 3-stars is in no way a negative rating. Did this book wow me or sweep me off my feet? No. But it had its funny moments.
The concept is an interesting and original one: a rom-com resort, where guests are assigned a character, a role to play, select activities, and then the games begin. The characters get funny names associated with famous romantic comedies (think Sally, a la Harry Met Sally) and there are a ton of references to all sorts of rom-com favorites. If you're a romantic comedy fan, you'll love all the little inside jokes.
"For the chance to achieve his dreams, Luke had to do one thing. Make the fantasy real."
I liked Julia's character and enjoyed Luke, although I must admit the guy was a bit of a clueless idiot. The seagulls were easily the best characters in the book and some of their scenes made me laugh out loud. I'm never a fan of "lying by omission" plots, so it was a little hard to stomach that the story that was based off of falsehoods. Julia and Luke did have chemistry but also suffered a bit from instalove--maybe it was the seagulls?
Overall, this is a fun, fairly quick read, peppered with rom-com references. It's definitely silly and a bit cheesy, but sweet too. 3 stars.
I received a copy of this book from St. Martin's Press and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
"I'm as likely to find the wardrobe to Narnia as I am to find my own Mark Darcy. Life isn't like a romantic comedy."
This was a perfectly cute romantic comedy and it's important to remember that 3-stars is in no way a negative rating. Did this book wow me or sweep me off my feet? No. But it had its funny moments.
The concept is an interesting and original one: a rom-com resort, where guests are assigned a character, a role to play, select activities, and then the games begin. The characters get funny names associated with famous romantic comedies (think Sally, a la Harry Met Sally) and there are a ton of references to all sorts of rom-com favorites. If you're a romantic comedy fan, you'll love all the little inside jokes.
"For the chance to achieve his dreams, Luke had to do one thing. Make the fantasy real."
I liked Julia's character and enjoyed Luke, although I must admit the guy was a bit of a clueless idiot. The seagulls were easily the best characters in the book and some of their scenes made me laugh out loud. I'm never a fan of "lying by omission" plots, so it was a little hard to stomach that the story that was based off of falsehoods. Julia and Luke did have chemistry but also suffered a bit from instalove--maybe it was the seagulls?
Overall, this is a fun, fairly quick read, peppered with rom-com references. It's definitely silly and a bit cheesy, but sweet too. 3 stars.
I received a copy of this book from St. Martin's Press and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Fighting with My Family (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Wrestling sure has changed since its heyday back in the 80’s. Believe it or not, back in those days there were many people who believed it was real, the wrestlers themselves would use razor blades to cut their faces to further the illusion. Big names like Andre’ the Giant, Sargent Slaughter and Hulk Hogan dominated the scenes and Hulkamania was all the rage. Wrestling these days still has characters larger than life who wage good versus evil battles against one another. Although now the focus is not only on what happens in the ring, but the characters and personas that present themselves outside the ring. Fighting with My Family, written and directed by Stephen Merchant (writer for The Office and Extras), takes us on a young woman’s rise from a family wrestling league to one of the youngest female stars to be featured in WWE.
Saraya “Paige” Bevis (Florence Pugh) alongside her brother Zak “Zodiac” Bevis (Jack Lowden) and parents (Nick Frost / Lena Headey) are a family run wrestling team. Trying to make a name for themselves they run a small gym in Norwich, England. Training up-and-coming wrestlers and putting on shows for the locals in hopes of a shot at the big time. One fateful evening, while Zak’s far more conservative girlfriend and her parents are over for dinner, a call comes from the WWE that will change both of their lives.
Saraya and Zak are offered an opportunity to compete against others for a chance to join similar hopefuls in Florida for a chance to be the next big thing. As one would expect, the competition is fierce and at the end of the day, only Saraya is chosen for a chance to go to America. The choice to take her and not her brother results in a sibling rivalry that neither would have anticipated when they were both trying out. Ultimately Saraya must choose to go forward with her dream or stay with her family, and while the choice is not easy, there wouldn’t be much of a film if she chose to stay. So, begins Saraya’s journey to show that she has not only the skills and strength, but the heart to succeed.
Fighting with My Family is a movie that has a tremendous amount of heart even if there is little interest in its source material. While it certainly does focus on wrestling as the key component, it could have easily been replaced with any other sport and had the same heart-warming success. This is not a movie only about the wild world of professional wrestling, but about one woman who must overcome her own self-doubts and insecurities to succeed. It’s a film about not only believing in yourself (even when others do not) but pushing yourself to follow your dreams no matter how difficult the road to achieving them turns out to be. The film reminds us that we should not simply take everything at face value, and that sometimes judging a book by it’s cover can prevent us from the magic that is held in the pages underneath.
The superior cast connects with the viewers on many levels. Whether its Jack Lowden’s portrayal of a man who worked hard only to fall short of his dreams, to Florence Pugh’s portrayal of Paige, a woman who constantly struggles with her choice and whether wrestling is her dream or simply the dream her parents pushed upon her. As always Vince Vaughn does an outstanding job delivering not only on the comedic aspects of the film, but also when tasked at delivering a more serious tone. This is a movie that will have you cheering for each character, and even applauding throughout.
Even though wrestling was a huge part of growing up, spanning everything from action figures to video games, I’ve never considered myself to be a wrestling fan. For those of you who are instantly looking to forego this movie because of the wrestling content, I’d ask you to reconsider. Fighting with My Family is so much more than simply a “wrestling movie”, and while it likely won’t convert you into being a die hard wrestling fan at the end, you might just be surprised at how much you take away from it when you leave the theater. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll cheer (at least that’s what all the viewers did at the screening I attended) and can you really say that about many movies these days?
Saraya “Paige” Bevis (Florence Pugh) alongside her brother Zak “Zodiac” Bevis (Jack Lowden) and parents (Nick Frost / Lena Headey) are a family run wrestling team. Trying to make a name for themselves they run a small gym in Norwich, England. Training up-and-coming wrestlers and putting on shows for the locals in hopes of a shot at the big time. One fateful evening, while Zak’s far more conservative girlfriend and her parents are over for dinner, a call comes from the WWE that will change both of their lives.
Saraya and Zak are offered an opportunity to compete against others for a chance to join similar hopefuls in Florida for a chance to be the next big thing. As one would expect, the competition is fierce and at the end of the day, only Saraya is chosen for a chance to go to America. The choice to take her and not her brother results in a sibling rivalry that neither would have anticipated when they were both trying out. Ultimately Saraya must choose to go forward with her dream or stay with her family, and while the choice is not easy, there wouldn’t be much of a film if she chose to stay. So, begins Saraya’s journey to show that she has not only the skills and strength, but the heart to succeed.
Fighting with My Family is a movie that has a tremendous amount of heart even if there is little interest in its source material. While it certainly does focus on wrestling as the key component, it could have easily been replaced with any other sport and had the same heart-warming success. This is not a movie only about the wild world of professional wrestling, but about one woman who must overcome her own self-doubts and insecurities to succeed. It’s a film about not only believing in yourself (even when others do not) but pushing yourself to follow your dreams no matter how difficult the road to achieving them turns out to be. The film reminds us that we should not simply take everything at face value, and that sometimes judging a book by it’s cover can prevent us from the magic that is held in the pages underneath.
The superior cast connects with the viewers on many levels. Whether its Jack Lowden’s portrayal of a man who worked hard only to fall short of his dreams, to Florence Pugh’s portrayal of Paige, a woman who constantly struggles with her choice and whether wrestling is her dream or simply the dream her parents pushed upon her. As always Vince Vaughn does an outstanding job delivering not only on the comedic aspects of the film, but also when tasked at delivering a more serious tone. This is a movie that will have you cheering for each character, and even applauding throughout.
Even though wrestling was a huge part of growing up, spanning everything from action figures to video games, I’ve never considered myself to be a wrestling fan. For those of you who are instantly looking to forego this movie because of the wrestling content, I’d ask you to reconsider. Fighting with My Family is so much more than simply a “wrestling movie”, and while it likely won’t convert you into being a die hard wrestling fan at the end, you might just be surprised at how much you take away from it when you leave the theater. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll cheer (at least that’s what all the viewers did at the screening I attended) and can you really say that about many movies these days?
Loz Hughes (80 KP) rated The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty (2013) in Movies
Jul 15, 2018
The panoramas (3 more)
The soundtrack
The movie's tone and message
The humour
My Antidepressant movie.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I rated this movie as a ten not because I am a Ben stiller fan per se but because of this movie's message and how I identify with the lead character.
Whilst most people will mark this movie lower, they are not wrong in their opinions, for many it may not seem anything special as such.
However I always watch this film whenever I am feeling low or life feels a bit much, because to me, it portrays that its never too late to achieve your dreams and start your adventure.
The film itself opens to an introduction of Walter (Ben stiller), an employee of Life magazine whose job has very much taken over his life, it shows his passion for his work and how he wishes very much, to be more like the adventurous photographer he chronicles. Walter is ridiculed and undermined by his work colleagues for his "spaced out" episodes where he dreams of what he would do or achieve if he were braver, smarter, more confident etc, like an alter ego of sorts.
Walter is then faced with a choice to accept failure and ridicule when he loses a negative in his care or embrace the unknown and not forsake his pride in a journey to hunt down its original owner.
Throughout the film you follow Walter in his quest to search for the missing negative and also his journey on the path of becoming the man he always hoped he would be as a teenager.
Along the way, stunning vistas and scenery set the scene and the humour keeps it from being boring.
Sure the film is a little fanciful but anyone with a good imagination and an element of Walter in them will appreciate it.
My favourite scene is when he is nearly attacked by a shark.."okay. That is not a porpoise" cracks me up every time.
I know a lot of people will mark this film lower and they wont be wrong in their opinions, it doesnt really contain many special effects, it does have a really awkward romance (but lets face it, reality is full of those moments you wish you had been more charming and less of a babbling idiot) and the storyline is a bit far fetched.
However I find it fun, uplifting, charming in its own way and enjoy the travel aspect of it.
Whilst most people will mark this movie lower, they are not wrong in their opinions, for many it may not seem anything special as such.
However I always watch this film whenever I am feeling low or life feels a bit much, because to me, it portrays that its never too late to achieve your dreams and start your adventure.
The film itself opens to an introduction of Walter (Ben stiller), an employee of Life magazine whose job has very much taken over his life, it shows his passion for his work and how he wishes very much, to be more like the adventurous photographer he chronicles. Walter is ridiculed and undermined by his work colleagues for his "spaced out" episodes where he dreams of what he would do or achieve if he were braver, smarter, more confident etc, like an alter ego of sorts.
Walter is then faced with a choice to accept failure and ridicule when he loses a negative in his care or embrace the unknown and not forsake his pride in a journey to hunt down its original owner.
Throughout the film you follow Walter in his quest to search for the missing negative and also his journey on the path of becoming the man he always hoped he would be as a teenager.
Along the way, stunning vistas and scenery set the scene and the humour keeps it from being boring.
Sure the film is a little fanciful but anyone with a good imagination and an element of Walter in them will appreciate it.
My favourite scene is when he is nearly attacked by a shark.."okay. That is not a porpoise" cracks me up every time.
I know a lot of people will mark this film lower and they wont be wrong in their opinions, it doesnt really contain many special effects, it does have a really awkward romance (but lets face it, reality is full of those moments you wish you had been more charming and less of a babbling idiot) and the storyline is a bit far fetched.
However I find it fun, uplifting, charming in its own way and enjoy the travel aspect of it.
Kelly (279 KP) rated Year One: Chronicles of The One in Books
Jan 8, 2019
Interesting characters (1 more)
Use of fantasy mixed into the apocalypse
Post apocalyptic with a sprinkle of fairy dust!
Originally purchasing this based on my previous purchases, I have to honestly confess that I had never heard of Nora Roberts! How I have missed this author, I do not know. I have thoroughly enjoyed this book, and will definitely be reading the remainder of the series.
Year One is the first in the three novel series - The Chronicles of The One. The novel itself definitely has undertones of Stephen Kings ‘The Stand’, and follows a similar format with the bulk of the worlds population being wiped out by a mysterious infection, leaving behind the survivors, who quickly divide into a good/ light side or bad/dark side. Unlike The Stand, which to me had slight biblical undertones, the unique selling point of Year One, is the addition of the uncanny’s, magical beings who have been living amongst us, some knowingly different, others benign until the doom releases their powers. I felt this added a new twist to the common post apocalyptic format.
I felt that the characters were varied and relatable within the story. Nora Toberts clearly spent a lot of time creating a varied population for cast, which helped their reactions within the story become more believable.
There is a lot going on within the story,which jumps between places and people as well as over the course of months, but as a reader I found this was necessary for the plot to develop. Surprisingly, despite all of the jumps, the story is still a relatively easy read. Throughout the narrative, I also find that Roberts gives very clear clues as to the direction that the next books will take, through the dreams/ visions of the characters.
The weakest part of the novel for me was the start, which is why I have only scored this a 9, rather than 10. It is probably me being picky, but I would have preferred another 50-100 pages giving me a little bit more background to some of the characters prior to the doom. I felt the background for some of the characters was there, but for others was a little sketchy, although ultimately this did not stop me engaging with them in the long term.
Overall, I highly recommend this book for anyone who enjoys fantasy and, or post apocalyptic novels. It is an interesting, enjoyable and easy read.
Year One is the first in the three novel series - The Chronicles of The One. The novel itself definitely has undertones of Stephen Kings ‘The Stand’, and follows a similar format with the bulk of the worlds population being wiped out by a mysterious infection, leaving behind the survivors, who quickly divide into a good/ light side or bad/dark side. Unlike The Stand, which to me had slight biblical undertones, the unique selling point of Year One, is the addition of the uncanny’s, magical beings who have been living amongst us, some knowingly different, others benign until the doom releases their powers. I felt this added a new twist to the common post apocalyptic format.
I felt that the characters were varied and relatable within the story. Nora Toberts clearly spent a lot of time creating a varied population for cast, which helped their reactions within the story become more believable.
There is a lot going on within the story,which jumps between places and people as well as over the course of months, but as a reader I found this was necessary for the plot to develop. Surprisingly, despite all of the jumps, the story is still a relatively easy read. Throughout the narrative, I also find that Roberts gives very clear clues as to the direction that the next books will take, through the dreams/ visions of the characters.
The weakest part of the novel for me was the start, which is why I have only scored this a 9, rather than 10. It is probably me being picky, but I would have preferred another 50-100 pages giving me a little bit more background to some of the characters prior to the doom. I felt the background for some of the characters was there, but for others was a little sketchy, although ultimately this did not stop me engaging with them in the long term.
Overall, I highly recommend this book for anyone who enjoys fantasy and, or post apocalyptic novels. It is an interesting, enjoyable and easy read.