Search
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated Born of Persuasion (Price of Privilege, #1) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Our leading lady, Julia Elliston, is the daughter of the famed Atheist William Elliston. She is young and naïve, her mother tried to protect her and shield her from the world outside. She has much to learn about the world and is in a delicate emotional state. Her entire life has begun to crumble, starting with the death of her mother. She soon learns that everything she thought she knew is a lie. How did her mother die exactly? And who is this mysterious guardian who wishes to remain anonymous? Her childhood sweetheart has betrayed her, yet is there hope for reconciliation? As we follow Julia’s journey of discovery we encounter a few other key players. Edward and Henry Auburn, brothers who fell in love with Julia and her best friend Elizabeth Windham as children. They made plans of their future together and were secretly betrothed. But now, all their hopes and dreams are threatened. Elizabeth’s mother, Mrs. Windham has taken it upon herself to find a husband for “poor Julia”. Lady Foxworth is intent upon playing matchmaker as well. Little does Julia know the vast change in life that could take place if she concedes to marry Mr. Macy. A man with extraordinary wealth that has promised to care for and protect Julia. But can he be trusted? When laws cannot protect Julia, will her life come to ruin? And will she take a step of faith towards the only One who remains constant in an ever changing world?
To be completely honest, I didn’t know what to think of this book most of the time I was reading it. Now that I have finished I will say that while I wasn’t 100% impressed with particulars of the content, it was a very well written book. I love the descriptive way Jessica Dotta drew me into the story. So much so, that I could imagine standing in the room with Julia. The language and style is one of my favorites for reading. The entire book is narrated by Julia who is looking back on her life much later, after the events have taken place. She hints at other mysteries in the story, but doesn’t give away too much. I was not impressed with the scenes between Mr. Macy and Julia where he was supposedly “courting” her. Although Julia remains a maiden by the end of the book, she allowed Macy’s advancements premature. It made me feel uncomfortable. Other than that, I really did enjoy Born of Persuasion. I am starting the second book Mark of Distinction, today.
To be completely honest, I didn’t know what to think of this book most of the time I was reading it. Now that I have finished I will say that while I wasn’t 100% impressed with particulars of the content, it was a very well written book. I love the descriptive way Jessica Dotta drew me into the story. So much so, that I could imagine standing in the room with Julia. The language and style is one of my favorites for reading. The entire book is narrated by Julia who is looking back on her life much later, after the events have taken place. She hints at other mysteries in the story, but doesn’t give away too much. I was not impressed with the scenes between Mr. Macy and Julia where he was supposedly “courting” her. Although Julia remains a maiden by the end of the book, she allowed Macy’s advancements premature. It made me feel uncomfortable. Other than that, I really did enjoy Born of Persuasion. I am starting the second book Mark of Distinction, today.
Life is not going well for Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). She has recently
split from the Joker and is wallowing in self-pity and trying to find a
new focus in her life. As a further complication; the protection she
enjoyed under the Joker has vanished and now everyone with a grudge is
gunning for her.
Fate has Harley cross paths with a young Pickpocket named Cassandra (Ella
Jay Basco), who comes into possession of a diamond that happens to hold a
very valuable secret. Before Harley knows what has hit her; she is on the
run not only from all manner of thugs but the very dangerous Roman Siona
(Ewan Mc Gregor) has upped the stakes for their heads and will stop at nothing to get it.
Throw in a disgruntled Detective (Rose Perez) a jaded singer (Jurnee
Smollett-Bell), and a mysterious assassin (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and
you have a very interesting and dangerous mix.
Sadly the film becomes jumbled at the start as the film will go down certain paths only to abruptly stop, rewind, go down another path, and resume.
This comes off as a disjointed mess at times and while I took it to help symbolize the mental state of Harley; it made connecting with the character and stories difficult.
This combined with the over the top
characters and routine story underminded the potential of the film.
While it entertained in parts, I do have to wonder if Director Cathy Yan
was in over her head. Yan had previously done four shorts and an Art Film
and seemed to be unsure of the pacing, action, and visual effects at times
as it certainally showed.
It is rumored that the head of the John Wick
stunt team was brought in to oversee reshoots for the film but Yan has
claimed this was simply for Second Unit work.
The film does have a strong theme of empowerment and I liked how it
emphasized that a woman does not need anyone to be strong and that they
have limitless potential. This is a very strong message that worked
wiell. Sadly the story offered no real variation from what we have seen
many times before in action and comic films and underscores how DC and
Warner Bros constantly come up lacking in this genrre where Marvel soars
time and again.
There isome entertainment in the film and Robbie is the perfect embodiyment of the character, sadly this Bird never really takes
flight.
2.5 out of 5
split from the Joker and is wallowing in self-pity and trying to find a
new focus in her life. As a further complication; the protection she
enjoyed under the Joker has vanished and now everyone with a grudge is
gunning for her.
Fate has Harley cross paths with a young Pickpocket named Cassandra (Ella
Jay Basco), who comes into possession of a diamond that happens to hold a
very valuable secret. Before Harley knows what has hit her; she is on the
run not only from all manner of thugs but the very dangerous Roman Siona
(Ewan Mc Gregor) has upped the stakes for their heads and will stop at nothing to get it.
Throw in a disgruntled Detective (Rose Perez) a jaded singer (Jurnee
Smollett-Bell), and a mysterious assassin (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and
you have a very interesting and dangerous mix.
Sadly the film becomes jumbled at the start as the film will go down certain paths only to abruptly stop, rewind, go down another path, and resume.
This comes off as a disjointed mess at times and while I took it to help symbolize the mental state of Harley; it made connecting with the character and stories difficult.
This combined with the over the top
characters and routine story underminded the potential of the film.
While it entertained in parts, I do have to wonder if Director Cathy Yan
was in over her head. Yan had previously done four shorts and an Art Film
and seemed to be unsure of the pacing, action, and visual effects at times
as it certainally showed.
It is rumored that the head of the John Wick
stunt team was brought in to oversee reshoots for the film but Yan has
claimed this was simply for Second Unit work.
The film does have a strong theme of empowerment and I liked how it
emphasized that a woman does not need anyone to be strong and that they
have limitless potential. This is a very strong message that worked
wiell. Sadly the story offered no real variation from what we have seen
many times before in action and comic films and underscores how DC and
Warner Bros constantly come up lacking in this genrre where Marvel soars
time and again.
There isome entertainment in the film and Robbie is the perfect embodiyment of the character, sadly this Bird never really takes
flight.
2.5 out of 5
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Museum of Broken Promises in Books
Apr 20, 2020
I am so excited to be part of the Book Buzz for The Museum of Broken Promises by Elizabeth Buchan. This lovely book is out on 02nd April, so don’t forget to grab your copy!
This book is quite emotional and heart-breaking from the very beginning until the very end. Based in Europe, in two timelines between now and 1985, we are witnesses to cold war, politics, fight for freedom and an extraordinary love story.
Today, Laure is living in Paris and she owns The Museum of Broken Promises - a place of wonder and sadness. Every object in the museum has been donated and each represents a moment of grief or terrible betrayal. Laure also has hidden objects of her own in there, from her own youth.
Back in 1985, Laure is in Prague, running away after her dad suddenly passes away. But her life here is very confusing. She is struggling to comprehend the dark politics that are taking over the city. But then she meets a young musician. And her love for him is forbidden and causes trouble and terrible consequences.
It is only years after having created the museum that Laure can finally come to terms with her past and celebrate the love she is feeling!
My Thoughts:
This is a very emotional book and I have learned that I need to be in a certain mood in order to be able to fully appreciate it. This is one of those books that leaves a tiny mark in your heart that you will always carry with you.
The story is amazing, we are witnessing a great life full of memories and stories of love, fight for freedom, betrayals, fears, ups and downs. It is so realistic that will make you shiver at times.
I have to admit, I found myself slightly confused at the beginning, trying to figure out which timeline I am currently in, but after a few chapters, I am able to make a difference and get a clearer picture of the story.
I loved the idea of this Museum of Broken Promises. It made me think of what object I could maybe leave there to represent my grief.
I have to admit, I didn’t truly connect with Laure as a main character. She seemed too closed in her own world and her sharing her story in the way that she did was very contradicting to me.
I loved Tomas though. He was my absolute favourite, the hero of this book.
This book is quite emotional and heart-breaking from the very beginning until the very end. Based in Europe, in two timelines between now and 1985, we are witnesses to cold war, politics, fight for freedom and an extraordinary love story.
Today, Laure is living in Paris and she owns The Museum of Broken Promises - a place of wonder and sadness. Every object in the museum has been donated and each represents a moment of grief or terrible betrayal. Laure also has hidden objects of her own in there, from her own youth.
Back in 1985, Laure is in Prague, running away after her dad suddenly passes away. But her life here is very confusing. She is struggling to comprehend the dark politics that are taking over the city. But then she meets a young musician. And her love for him is forbidden and causes trouble and terrible consequences.
It is only years after having created the museum that Laure can finally come to terms with her past and celebrate the love she is feeling!
My Thoughts:
This is a very emotional book and I have learned that I need to be in a certain mood in order to be able to fully appreciate it. This is one of those books that leaves a tiny mark in your heart that you will always carry with you.
The story is amazing, we are witnessing a great life full of memories and stories of love, fight for freedom, betrayals, fears, ups and downs. It is so realistic that will make you shiver at times.
I have to admit, I found myself slightly confused at the beginning, trying to figure out which timeline I am currently in, but after a few chapters, I am able to make a difference and get a clearer picture of the story.
I loved the idea of this Museum of Broken Promises. It made me think of what object I could maybe leave there to represent my grief.
I have to admit, I didn’t truly connect with Laure as a main character. She seemed too closed in her own world and her sharing her story in the way that she did was very contradicting to me.
I loved Tomas though. He was my absolute favourite, the hero of this book.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Young Frankenstein (1974) in Movies
Apr 20, 2020
My All Time Favorite Comedy
There are certain films that I can revisit time and time again and the effects of the film do not diminish for me and I would argue that they get better with age...and with repeated viewings.
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Innovative and Intriguing, Double The Will Smith Fails To Push The Movie From Good To Great
Contains spoilers, click to show
So before I saw this movie I actually saw Will Smith on The Stephen Colbert Show. They rolled a clip from the motorcycle fight scene from the movie and I was taken aback by how fake some of it looked. And not the action of it but the movements of the younger Will Smith clone. On the show Will Smith said that this is the first film where the entire character of the young clone was completely digital and there was no MOCAP or digital de-aging. I'm not sure if it was this new way of having the character there that caused the movement to look so fake but some of the scenes had parts that were downright laughable. Since I knew this already I tried not to go into the movie with too high of expectations. And because of this and really giving it a chance I think I was more able to enjoy it then others who will definitely be turned off by it. I hate that for some people it will hurt there ability to suspend belief because that's one reason we all go to the theater. To get sucked into another world where anything is possible and forget about the real world for an hour or two. This really was a good movie besides that being it's greatest fault. There are even some scenes where it looks totally fine and really good. Most scenes like that are zoomed into his face during dialogue and the amount of detail they did was really fantastic. I mean Will Smith did a great job as this disillusioned assassin, Mary Elizabeth Winstead did a good job as a rookie agent meant to be surveiling him, and Benedict Wong was cool as Baron his friend and ex-colleague. Even Clive Owen did good as Clay Varris, head of a top-secret black ops unit codenamed "Gemini". The plot wasn't very complicated, Will retires and starts learning that people he killed were innocent and then people start trying to kill him before he can learn the truth. He finds out that a younger clone of himself is trying to kill him and he tries not to kill him as he tries to take down the man responsible for this. Nothing remarkable but there were some pretty good action scenes especially the finale where they fight in the town. As I said I give this movie a 6/10.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A film for all those women who dream of chivalry, but want to kick some ass.
Contains spoilers, click to show
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Verdict: Stylish Crime Story
Story: Hustlers starts as we follow a young stripper Destiny (Wu) who is working to make sure her Grandmother (Ho0 is supported, she sees the more successful dancers in the club as she is trying to find her own place in the club, looking up to the most popular dancer Ramona (Lopez).
Ramona takes Destiny under her wing to teacher her more techniques, which should give her a chance to get more money, let alone showing her about the extra tricks she has been working on for years, getting the credit cards and taking their money, showing the money flying in, taking advantage of the Wall Street clients.
Thoughts on Hustlers
Characters – Destiny is the young woman who just wants to make enough money in her life for her Grandmother who has always supported her. She has a job as a stripper which sees her start small before learning how to bring in the big money, while her life might not go to plan after she has a kid, she returns to the life as a dancer which sees her take advantage of the wall street bankers. Ramona is the experience dancer, she gets most of the attention in the club and takes Destiny under her wing in a mentor role, they have one brilliant year before things change. Once they are out the club, she leads a bigger scheme which takes thousands from the clients bringing the girls together. Elizabeth is a journalist hearing the story from Destiny about what happened with the women, she wants to hear everything to see whether they knew and thought what they did was right. We do meet plenty of the fellow girls that joined in the plan, each has different motivations and different skill levels to be part of it.
Performances – Constance Wu in the leading role is wonderful and such a big change from last years Crazy Rich Asians, proving herself as an actress that can play both sides of the acting range. Jennifer Lopez shines as the confident seductive dancer, she looks the part with ease and steals every scene she is in. Julia Stiles brings the calm reporter that is asking most of the questions that we would be asking. The rest of the cast including the dancers do a great job too.
Story – The story here follows two strippers that start their own business where they look to make massive amounts of money by drugging wall street banks and using their cards to fill their financial needs. The story here shows how the plan starts off small, but soon leads to them going for bigger scores which leads to them taking bigger risks which they didn’t need to be getting involved in. while this is based on a true story, it does show that there wasn’t much of a punishment for the women either. The mentor friendship between Destiny and Ramona is great to see as we can see how they both need each other to get through the problems they might the facing.
Comedy/Crime – The crime side of the film mixes with the comedy which shows how the women were getting away with the crime for so long without being caught in the middle of being a full-blown comedy.
Settings – The film is set in New York which shows where the targets will have too much money for their own good, which makes them an easy target.
Scene of the Movie – The bad party.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The time jump does take away something from the story.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun crime comedy that showed how a group of hustlers swindled money out of wall street bankers who would spend anything.
Overall: Fun throughout.
Story: Hustlers starts as we follow a young stripper Destiny (Wu) who is working to make sure her Grandmother (Ho0 is supported, she sees the more successful dancers in the club as she is trying to find her own place in the club, looking up to the most popular dancer Ramona (Lopez).
Ramona takes Destiny under her wing to teacher her more techniques, which should give her a chance to get more money, let alone showing her about the extra tricks she has been working on for years, getting the credit cards and taking their money, showing the money flying in, taking advantage of the Wall Street clients.
Thoughts on Hustlers
Characters – Destiny is the young woman who just wants to make enough money in her life for her Grandmother who has always supported her. She has a job as a stripper which sees her start small before learning how to bring in the big money, while her life might not go to plan after she has a kid, she returns to the life as a dancer which sees her take advantage of the wall street bankers. Ramona is the experience dancer, she gets most of the attention in the club and takes Destiny under her wing in a mentor role, they have one brilliant year before things change. Once they are out the club, she leads a bigger scheme which takes thousands from the clients bringing the girls together. Elizabeth is a journalist hearing the story from Destiny about what happened with the women, she wants to hear everything to see whether they knew and thought what they did was right. We do meet plenty of the fellow girls that joined in the plan, each has different motivations and different skill levels to be part of it.
Performances – Constance Wu in the leading role is wonderful and such a big change from last years Crazy Rich Asians, proving herself as an actress that can play both sides of the acting range. Jennifer Lopez shines as the confident seductive dancer, she looks the part with ease and steals every scene she is in. Julia Stiles brings the calm reporter that is asking most of the questions that we would be asking. The rest of the cast including the dancers do a great job too.
Story – The story here follows two strippers that start their own business where they look to make massive amounts of money by drugging wall street banks and using their cards to fill their financial needs. The story here shows how the plan starts off small, but soon leads to them going for bigger scores which leads to them taking bigger risks which they didn’t need to be getting involved in. while this is based on a true story, it does show that there wasn’t much of a punishment for the women either. The mentor friendship between Destiny and Ramona is great to see as we can see how they both need each other to get through the problems they might the facing.
Comedy/Crime – The crime side of the film mixes with the comedy which shows how the women were getting away with the crime for so long without being caught in the middle of being a full-blown comedy.
Settings – The film is set in New York which shows where the targets will have too much money for their own good, which makes them an easy target.
Scene of the Movie – The bad party.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The time jump does take away something from the story.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun crime comedy that showed how a group of hustlers swindled money out of wall street bankers who would spend anything.
Overall: Fun throughout.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“The Hunger Games” is based in a post-apocalyptic time when the world has been overcome by a series of devastating natural disasters and people have turned on each other to provide supplies for their families and for themselves in order to survive.
Bringing peace to the land was a nation known as Panem which is ruled by the Capitol. Panem had once consisted of thirteen districts all providing a resource essential to the survival of its people. An uprising against the Capitol caused much anger and destruction resulting in war and the annihilation of its thirteenth district.
With the intent to make sure such an uprising would never happen again, the Capitol required each of the twelve remaining districts to abide by the rules and regulations written in the Treaty of Treason to make sure that there is peace within Panem. Once a year a lottery is held where each of the twelve districts must offer up one young man and one young woman as tributes. This must be done in order to remind the people of Panem what was lost. Each of the 24 tributes must train and then battle for survival in an outdoor arena against each other leaving only one tribute to become the victor. This is known as The Hunger Games.
“The Hunger Games” is based upon the New York times best seller written by Suzanne Collins and directed by Gary Ross who also directed Seabiscuit. The storyline follows the main character Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers as tribute in order to save her younger sister from having to fight and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcheson) has also been randomly chosen as tribute for the twelfth district.
The movie mostly follows these two characters on their journey to the battle ground as opposed to the book where we get a little more background into each of the different districts and their tributes. Who will be the victor of the 74th annual Hunger Games?
Let me start off by stating that you do not need to have read the book in order to enjoy this film. However, the movie does follow the book very well. Fans will always have their own very strong opinions as to whether the films follow their favorite books but for someone who read the book after I watched the movie I must say I was not lost nor did I feel disappointed that I did not read it prior to screening it.
This film includes a great cast such as Stanley Tucci, Wes Bentley, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland and a surprisingly effectively-cast Lenny Kravitz. Along with a fitting cast the film also offers a great soundtrack, colors that fit each district and great cinematography.
It is always interesting to hear the comments of the other reviewers after the end of a movie screening. Some commented on how they pictured certain characters as a totally different type of character than what was portrayed in the book such as Cinna played by Lenny Kravitz.
One lady pictured him as a slim Asian man while my guest pictured him as a flamboyant white man with a high fashion sense. Others commented on how shaky the cinematography was. Yes, granted it does get shaky in a lot of the scenes but it only adds action to the heart pounding edge of your seat scenes. This film is a kickstart to the season of great movies to come and I predict “The Hunger Games” will reach a bigger audience as it provides elements of action, drama and sci-fi to satisfy a larger audience.
For those of you who have not read the book I do have to warn you some of the scenes and or elements of the story may be just a little too disturbing for some but is a great story nonetheless.
Bringing peace to the land was a nation known as Panem which is ruled by the Capitol. Panem had once consisted of thirteen districts all providing a resource essential to the survival of its people. An uprising against the Capitol caused much anger and destruction resulting in war and the annihilation of its thirteenth district.
With the intent to make sure such an uprising would never happen again, the Capitol required each of the twelve remaining districts to abide by the rules and regulations written in the Treaty of Treason to make sure that there is peace within Panem. Once a year a lottery is held where each of the twelve districts must offer up one young man and one young woman as tributes. This must be done in order to remind the people of Panem what was lost. Each of the 24 tributes must train and then battle for survival in an outdoor arena against each other leaving only one tribute to become the victor. This is known as The Hunger Games.
“The Hunger Games” is based upon the New York times best seller written by Suzanne Collins and directed by Gary Ross who also directed Seabiscuit. The storyline follows the main character Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers as tribute in order to save her younger sister from having to fight and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcheson) has also been randomly chosen as tribute for the twelfth district.
The movie mostly follows these two characters on their journey to the battle ground as opposed to the book where we get a little more background into each of the different districts and their tributes. Who will be the victor of the 74th annual Hunger Games?
Let me start off by stating that you do not need to have read the book in order to enjoy this film. However, the movie does follow the book very well. Fans will always have their own very strong opinions as to whether the films follow their favorite books but for someone who read the book after I watched the movie I must say I was not lost nor did I feel disappointed that I did not read it prior to screening it.
This film includes a great cast such as Stanley Tucci, Wes Bentley, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland and a surprisingly effectively-cast Lenny Kravitz. Along with a fitting cast the film also offers a great soundtrack, colors that fit each district and great cinematography.
It is always interesting to hear the comments of the other reviewers after the end of a movie screening. Some commented on how they pictured certain characters as a totally different type of character than what was portrayed in the book such as Cinna played by Lenny Kravitz.
One lady pictured him as a slim Asian man while my guest pictured him as a flamboyant white man with a high fashion sense. Others commented on how shaky the cinematography was. Yes, granted it does get shaky in a lot of the scenes but it only adds action to the heart pounding edge of your seat scenes. This film is a kickstart to the season of great movies to come and I predict “The Hunger Games” will reach a bigger audience as it provides elements of action, drama and sci-fi to satisfy a larger audience.
For those of you who have not read the book I do have to warn you some of the scenes and or elements of the story may be just a little too disturbing for some but is a great story nonetheless.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated A Frozen Heart in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
It seems like adaptations of Frozen and Frozen 2 are everywhere right now: it must be so hard for an author to come up with a story that is different enough to draw readers in but still in-keeping with the story. Luckily, Elizabeth Rudnick’s skilled writing turns the typical Frozen tale on its head: telling it solely from the perspective of Anna and Hans.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Saint Maud (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Morfydd Clark - astonishingly good as Maud (1 more)
Expert pacing from debut director Rose Glass
"My Little Saviour": Astonishing Saint Maud delivers psycho-religious chills
Saint Maud is the debut feature from writer/director Rose Glass, and it packs a punch. The film was first seen at last year's London Film Festival, but was due for broader nationwide release soon. What a crushing disappointment it must be for Ms Glass that so few people will likely get to see it in the current climate... at least, not for a while. Since it is an effective little chiller.
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
