Search
Search results
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Our Kind of Cruelty: A Novel in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Our Kind of Cruelty by Araminta Hall is a domestic thriller and courtroom drama like no other! I’ve never read one quite like it. Not only do we have a male narrator named Mike, and see things from his point of view, we’re also dealing with other issues of autism and passionate obsessions, too. Until recently, Mike and his girlfriend Verity ( V as he likes to call her) have played a dangerous, sexual game called ‘Crave’, for years. But when they break up obsessed Mike still believes V is playing the game and will come back to him, despite V telling him she’s getting married to someone else and inviting him to the wedding. Nothing deters single-minded, Mike from his expected outcome.
The book begins like any other but it wasn’t long before I felt sorry for Mike, even though I knew he was a nasty piece of work. Why? I found the reason I sympathised with him was in the details. The way the author, Araminta Hall, portrayed Mike’s years as he talked about life as a kid; the things he refused to do, or accept, because his thinking was always logical and he didn’t understand why no one else could see things the way he did. Why say sorry when you don’t mean it? Why say you could kill someone and not do it?
As an adult Mike’s learnt to fit in with the world and act as society expects. To a certain degree. But it doesn’t mean he has to like it, or find it easy to do. He’s also one for keeping himself in check with routines of which he thrives on. Clearly, when you get to the end you’ll realise Mike’s attitude plays a massive part of the final twist.
I really enjoyed this book and its flawed characters. Although it’s not particularly fast-paced to start with, the journey fascinated me. Our Kind of Cruelty is about obsessive love, unhealthy relationships, and the psychology of the human mind. Details. It’s all in the details.
#WhatsYourVerdict? My verdict would give the whole twist away… This would translate well to film.
The book begins like any other but it wasn’t long before I felt sorry for Mike, even though I knew he was a nasty piece of work. Why? I found the reason I sympathised with him was in the details. The way the author, Araminta Hall, portrayed Mike’s years as he talked about life as a kid; the things he refused to do, or accept, because his thinking was always logical and he didn’t understand why no one else could see things the way he did. Why say sorry when you don’t mean it? Why say you could kill someone and not do it?
As an adult Mike’s learnt to fit in with the world and act as society expects. To a certain degree. But it doesn’t mean he has to like it, or find it easy to do. He’s also one for keeping himself in check with routines of which he thrives on. Clearly, when you get to the end you’ll realise Mike’s attitude plays a massive part of the final twist.
I really enjoyed this book and its flawed characters. Although it’s not particularly fast-paced to start with, the journey fascinated me. Our Kind of Cruelty is about obsessive love, unhealthy relationships, and the psychology of the human mind. Details. It’s all in the details.
#WhatsYourVerdict? My verdict would give the whole twist away… This would translate well to film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Horrific Beasts and How to Avoid Them.
I seem to be in a bit of a minority in quite liking Ridley Scott’s last Alien outing – 2012’s “Prometheus”: a heady, if at times ponderous, theory to the origins of man. The first hour of that film is really good. But for me, what made the original 1979 film so enthralling was the life cycle of the ‘traditional’ Xenomorph aliens through egg to evil hatchling to vicious killing machine. This somewhat got lost with “Prometheus” with a range of alien-like-things ranging from wiggly black goo to something more familiar… and frankly I was confused. Some – repeat, some – of the explanation for that diversity of forms in “Prometheus” is made clearer in the sequel “Alien: Covenant”.
“Covenant” (named again after the spaceship at its heart) is a follow-on sequel to “Prometheus”, so it is worth re-watching it if you can before a cinema trip. At the end of that film we saw Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) and a reconstructed android David (Michael Fassbender, “Steve Jobs“) flying off in an alien craft still loaded with its cargo of nasty alien black goo. Shaw had a mission to seek out The Engineer’s home world – named “Paradise” – to find out why after creating man they were intent on going back to finish them off with a WMD. A neat prologue has been released which documents this… here:
We pick up the action 10 years later in a totally improbable 2104. (Give us a break writing team! [Story by Jack Paglen and Michael Green; screenplay by John Logan and Dante Harper]. We know they won’t have got through planning permission on the third Heathrow runway by then, let alone invented interplanetary travel…! 2504, maybe!)
Daniels (Katherine Waterston, “Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them“) has just suffered a sudden bereavement (an uncredited James Franco – – blink and you’ll miss him). She has also been rudely awakened from hypersleep due to a sudden system mishap: no, not to find Chris Pratt there like “Passengers“, but by the ship’s android Walter (also Michael Fassbender) who’s also revived the rest of the crew. While effecting repairs they receive a garbled John Denver track mysteriously beamed to them from an earth-like planet not too far away. As this might be a suitable homestead, and as spending weeks more in hypersleep is unattractive, Captain Oram (Billy Crudup, “Spotlight“) votes to check it out, against Daniels’ strong objections. Needless to say, this proves to be a BIG MISTAKE as the new film neatly links hands with the first film.
Kick-ass… Katherine Waterston being careful not to slip in the shower.
There’s a limit to what more I can say about the film without delivering spoilers (so I have added a few more comments in the spoiler section BELOW the trailer). It’s a far more action-oriented film than “Prometheus” and has enough jump scares and gore to please most Alien fans. (In fact, it’s a surprise to me that it got a UK “15” certificate rather than an “18”: how much more violence do you need to show in the film?) A shower scene towards the end of the film is particularly effective and will likely put an end to relaxing shower sex for many people for good!
It also looks visually stunning (cinematography is by Dariusz Wolski (“The Martian“, “Pirates of the Caribbean”) with location shooting in Milford Sound in New Zealand. The special effects are also a cut-above the normal CGI with a devastated Pompeii-like city, a picture of blacks and greys, being particularly effective.
In the acting stakes it is really all down to Waterston and Fassbinder. I wasn’t a great fan of Waterston in “Fantastic Beasts” – a bit insipid I thought – but here she adopts Ripley’s kick-ass mantle with ease but blends it beautifully with doe-eyed vulnerability. Some of her scenes reminded me strongly of Demi Moore in “Ghost”. Fassbinder is fascinating to watch with his dual roles of Walter and David, both slightly different versions of the same being. And the special effects around the Fassbinder-on-Fassbinder action, tending somewhat towards the homoerotic in places, are well done.
Unfortunately the rest of the crew get little in the way of background development, which limits the impact of the inevitable demises. They are also about as clinically stupid as the spaceship crew in “Life” in some of their actions; I guess you could put some of this down to the effects of panic, but in other cases you might see it as a simple cleansing of the gene pool in Darwinian fashion.
Also making uncredited guest appearances are Guy Pearce as Weyland (in a flashback scene) and Noomi Rapace.
Music is “by” Jed Kurzel, but to be honest he does little than wrap around re-versions of the original Jerry Goldsmith classics: not that this is a bad thing, since those themes are iconic and a joy to hear again on the big screen.
My expectations for this movie were sky-high, as it was hinted as a return to form for the franchise. And in many ways it was, with a “man, Gods and androids” theme adding depth to the traditional anatomical-bursting gore. But to be honest, some of the storytelling was highly predictable, and I left slightly disappointed with the overall effort. If my expectations were an 11/10, my reality was more like a 7/10. It’s still a good film, and I look forward to watching it again. But perhaps this is a franchise that has really run its course now for Mr Scott and he should look to his next “Martian”-type movie for a more novel foundation to build his next movie “log cabin on the lake” on.
“Covenant” (named again after the spaceship at its heart) is a follow-on sequel to “Prometheus”, so it is worth re-watching it if you can before a cinema trip. At the end of that film we saw Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) and a reconstructed android David (Michael Fassbender, “Steve Jobs“) flying off in an alien craft still loaded with its cargo of nasty alien black goo. Shaw had a mission to seek out The Engineer’s home world – named “Paradise” – to find out why after creating man they were intent on going back to finish them off with a WMD. A neat prologue has been released which documents this… here:
We pick up the action 10 years later in a totally improbable 2104. (Give us a break writing team! [Story by Jack Paglen and Michael Green; screenplay by John Logan and Dante Harper]. We know they won’t have got through planning permission on the third Heathrow runway by then, let alone invented interplanetary travel…! 2504, maybe!)
Daniels (Katherine Waterston, “Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them“) has just suffered a sudden bereavement (an uncredited James Franco – – blink and you’ll miss him). She has also been rudely awakened from hypersleep due to a sudden system mishap: no, not to find Chris Pratt there like “Passengers“, but by the ship’s android Walter (also Michael Fassbender) who’s also revived the rest of the crew. While effecting repairs they receive a garbled John Denver track mysteriously beamed to them from an earth-like planet not too far away. As this might be a suitable homestead, and as spending weeks more in hypersleep is unattractive, Captain Oram (Billy Crudup, “Spotlight“) votes to check it out, against Daniels’ strong objections. Needless to say, this proves to be a BIG MISTAKE as the new film neatly links hands with the first film.
Kick-ass… Katherine Waterston being careful not to slip in the shower.
There’s a limit to what more I can say about the film without delivering spoilers (so I have added a few more comments in the spoiler section BELOW the trailer). It’s a far more action-oriented film than “Prometheus” and has enough jump scares and gore to please most Alien fans. (In fact, it’s a surprise to me that it got a UK “15” certificate rather than an “18”: how much more violence do you need to show in the film?) A shower scene towards the end of the film is particularly effective and will likely put an end to relaxing shower sex for many people for good!
It also looks visually stunning (cinematography is by Dariusz Wolski (“The Martian“, “Pirates of the Caribbean”) with location shooting in Milford Sound in New Zealand. The special effects are also a cut-above the normal CGI with a devastated Pompeii-like city, a picture of blacks and greys, being particularly effective.
In the acting stakes it is really all down to Waterston and Fassbinder. I wasn’t a great fan of Waterston in “Fantastic Beasts” – a bit insipid I thought – but here she adopts Ripley’s kick-ass mantle with ease but blends it beautifully with doe-eyed vulnerability. Some of her scenes reminded me strongly of Demi Moore in “Ghost”. Fassbinder is fascinating to watch with his dual roles of Walter and David, both slightly different versions of the same being. And the special effects around the Fassbinder-on-Fassbinder action, tending somewhat towards the homoerotic in places, are well done.
Unfortunately the rest of the crew get little in the way of background development, which limits the impact of the inevitable demises. They are also about as clinically stupid as the spaceship crew in “Life” in some of their actions; I guess you could put some of this down to the effects of panic, but in other cases you might see it as a simple cleansing of the gene pool in Darwinian fashion.
Also making uncredited guest appearances are Guy Pearce as Weyland (in a flashback scene) and Noomi Rapace.
Music is “by” Jed Kurzel, but to be honest he does little than wrap around re-versions of the original Jerry Goldsmith classics: not that this is a bad thing, since those themes are iconic and a joy to hear again on the big screen.
My expectations for this movie were sky-high, as it was hinted as a return to form for the franchise. And in many ways it was, with a “man, Gods and androids” theme adding depth to the traditional anatomical-bursting gore. But to be honest, some of the storytelling was highly predictable, and I left slightly disappointed with the overall effort. If my expectations were an 11/10, my reality was more like a 7/10. It’s still a good film, and I look forward to watching it again. But perhaps this is a franchise that has really run its course now for Mr Scott and he should look to his next “Martian”-type movie for a more novel foundation to build his next movie “log cabin on the lake” on.
TravelersWife4Life (31 KP) rated Heart of a Royal (Daughters of Peverell, #1) in Books
Feb 24, 2021
WOW! This book. Was kinda an eye opener for me. I honestly did not know what to expect when I picked up this book to read. Growing up I was kind of a late bloomer regarding reading. Therefore, I never (and I mean never) read any YA fiction I would only read what was required of me for school assignments. I took a chance on reading this book because I thought the description sounded good (I have been trying to pick books solely based on descriptions). It did not disappoint me. Hannah Currie did a marvelously good job conveying many different characteristics of who we are as Sons and Daughters of the King. Princess (Lady) Mackenna is a very well-developed character, who displays strength when things don’t go as expected. All the while she is still silently searching for the answers her heart seeks. She does end up finding hope when she least expects it. Personally, I can relate to this story very easily (Not that I am royalty) but, I have always struggled with finding my place in this world and how God can use me. I think Hannah Currie did a great job covering this aspect in the story. Prince Thoraben (Ben) was also a great character. Though he was not the main character of the story, we do get lots of insight into his character, which I liked.
With some very interesting twists in this book that I wasn’t expecting, a dash of a very sweet romance (I absolutely loved that part), great characters and plot development I give this book a 5 out of 5 star rating. It was so good I literally could not put it down, and I can’t wait to read more books by Hannah Currie and I highly suggest picking this book up to read.
With some very interesting twists in this book that I wasn’t expecting, a dash of a very sweet romance (I absolutely loved that part), great characters and plot development I give this book a 5 out of 5 star rating. It was so good I literally could not put it down, and I can’t wait to read more books by Hannah Currie and I highly suggest picking this book up to read.
GT Racing 2: The Real Car Experience
Games and Entertainment
App
GT Racing 2: The Real Car Experience is a true-to-life automotive journey featuring the most...
Raising Girls
Book
Steve Biddulph’s Raising Boys was a global phenomenon. The first book in a generation to look at...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Contains little tomb raiding
Academy Award-winner Alicia Vikander is probably not the first choice for many to portray legendary video game character, Lara Croft. Perhaps Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman or even Keira Knightley would have been above Vikander to be in with a shot of bagging the role?
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
Quotes for Instagram - Get Inspired for Followers
Lifestyle and Photo & Video
App
Get inspired and gain wisdom bits about life every day. Any better way to start the day？ Quotes...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Smurfs: The Lost Village (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Rewind back to the 80s, what was every kid doing Saturday mornings? Watching TV and catching up on their latest Smurfs’ adventure; running from the clutches of the evil wizard Gargamel. Who’s only purpose was to catch the Smurfs steal their powers and become the most powerful wizard in the world. I couldn’t help but feel a bit of nostalgia back to my childhood while watching this movie.
The film centered around Smurfette, the only female Smurf, and her struggle to find her place in Smurf Village. Smurfette was not born a Smurf. Gargamel used his magic to turn a piece of clay into Smurfette. His intent was to have his creation, Smurfette, lead him to Smurf village and capture all the Smurfs. Fortunately, Papa Smurf had his own magic and used it to turn Smurfette from evil to good.
Fast forward to present Smurf-day, Smurfette (Demi Lovato) tries her best to fit in, but ultimately has a serious identity crisis. So what does one do when they can’t figure out who they are? They go in search of their own identity. Along the way, Smurfette crosses paths with a strange creature. Eager to find out who this creature is, against Papa Smurf”s request, Smurfette decides to enter the Forbidden Forest. An area no Smurf has even been allowed to visit. She is joined by her brothers Brainy, Clumsy, and Hefty-who unfortunately end up in Gargamel’s clutches. Gargamel (Rainn Wilson) uses his magic and finds out the there is another Smurf village, one that lies beyond the Forbidden Forest. Knowing the damage they have caused, Smurfette and her brothers trek has now changed into a rescue mission. They must reach the lost village before Gargamel and his cat, Azrael and warn the villagers of his evil plan. Who are these villagers? Hmm….
You don’t have to watch the first 2 Smurf films to understand what this one is about. They are completely different storylines and this one is 100% animation. A full return to the tone and characteristics of the beloved 80s cartoon. From the comedic gestures to the close escape from Gagamel, the movie provides loads of entertainment. It tugs at the heartstrings because we’ve all experienced self doubt. It does brush on moments of girl power and of course there are musical dance numbers. Really all the Smurfy fans that enjoyed the Smurfiness of yester-year Smurfs, will definitely find this movie the Smurftastic.
The film centered around Smurfette, the only female Smurf, and her struggle to find her place in Smurf Village. Smurfette was not born a Smurf. Gargamel used his magic to turn a piece of clay into Smurfette. His intent was to have his creation, Smurfette, lead him to Smurf village and capture all the Smurfs. Fortunately, Papa Smurf had his own magic and used it to turn Smurfette from evil to good.
Fast forward to present Smurf-day, Smurfette (Demi Lovato) tries her best to fit in, but ultimately has a serious identity crisis. So what does one do when they can’t figure out who they are? They go in search of their own identity. Along the way, Smurfette crosses paths with a strange creature. Eager to find out who this creature is, against Papa Smurf”s request, Smurfette decides to enter the Forbidden Forest. An area no Smurf has even been allowed to visit. She is joined by her brothers Brainy, Clumsy, and Hefty-who unfortunately end up in Gargamel’s clutches. Gargamel (Rainn Wilson) uses his magic and finds out the there is another Smurf village, one that lies beyond the Forbidden Forest. Knowing the damage they have caused, Smurfette and her brothers trek has now changed into a rescue mission. They must reach the lost village before Gargamel and his cat, Azrael and warn the villagers of his evil plan. Who are these villagers? Hmm….
You don’t have to watch the first 2 Smurf films to understand what this one is about. They are completely different storylines and this one is 100% animation. A full return to the tone and characteristics of the beloved 80s cartoon. From the comedic gestures to the close escape from Gagamel, the movie provides loads of entertainment. It tugs at the heartstrings because we’ve all experienced self doubt. It does brush on moments of girl power and of course there are musical dance numbers. Really all the Smurfy fans that enjoyed the Smurfiness of yester-year Smurfs, will definitely find this movie the Smurftastic.
Maddog (122 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
May 16, 2020
A must see, even if your not a superhero fan.
I'm a massive Joker fan - always have been ever since I was little, so this may be a little one sided.
So out of all the films he's been involved with this is Joker’s first stand alone movie which I was so excited for. Joker’s back story has of course been talked about for many years as most of his life is unknown and simply everyone is guessing. The film 'Joker' decides to go down the back story of mental health which many believe is the cause of his behaviour.
The film starts off very simple, so much so that you believe you could be watching any other film. You get little hints of the Joker’s mental health issues and how people see him (at one point I felt sorry for him because of everything happening in the movie). As the movie progresses your then thrown into the world and mindset of the Joker himself; you start to see more mental health issues and start to notice the Joker that everyone knows. As the film progresses towards to the end, it creates many moments that leave you questioning your own sanity as you start to wonder what the truth is.
Yes this film has it flaws; it wasn’t quite the stand alone I was hoping for as I thought maybe a lesser well known reason would have been chosen but still the film did well with its chosen plot.
Yes it has 'that song' but in reality I feel it actually helps with the story that's happening. Here's my take; I feel that the song is in fact a hidden message. The song was performed by someone many would call 'a monster' so in truth is this not fitting for Joker? I believe that the playing of this song is Joker showing the audience in only true Joker fashion that 'the monster' he has hidden for so long is finally free.
There are many things I could say about this film but I feel I'd be here forever. In truth, many people don't enjoy this film for whatever their reason, or only enjoy parts. However, I enjoyed all of the film and everything it stands for or represents. As I said at the beginning I'm a Joker fan so this may seem one sided. I will say this though no matter what you may think about the film it’s 100% worth a watch, we can all take something away from this film, even if it's just how well done the movie was made. put together and portrayed.
So out of all the films he's been involved with this is Joker’s first stand alone movie which I was so excited for. Joker’s back story has of course been talked about for many years as most of his life is unknown and simply everyone is guessing. The film 'Joker' decides to go down the back story of mental health which many believe is the cause of his behaviour.
The film starts off very simple, so much so that you believe you could be watching any other film. You get little hints of the Joker’s mental health issues and how people see him (at one point I felt sorry for him because of everything happening in the movie). As the movie progresses your then thrown into the world and mindset of the Joker himself; you start to see more mental health issues and start to notice the Joker that everyone knows. As the film progresses towards to the end, it creates many moments that leave you questioning your own sanity as you start to wonder what the truth is.
Yes this film has it flaws; it wasn’t quite the stand alone I was hoping for as I thought maybe a lesser well known reason would have been chosen but still the film did well with its chosen plot.
Yes it has 'that song' but in reality I feel it actually helps with the story that's happening. Here's my take; I feel that the song is in fact a hidden message. The song was performed by someone many would call 'a monster' so in truth is this not fitting for Joker? I believe that the playing of this song is Joker showing the audience in only true Joker fashion that 'the monster' he has hidden for so long is finally free.
There are many things I could say about this film but I feel I'd be here forever. In truth, many people don't enjoy this film for whatever their reason, or only enjoy parts. However, I enjoyed all of the film and everything it stands for or represents. As I said at the beginning I'm a Joker fan so this may seem one sided. I will say this though no matter what you may think about the film it’s 100% worth a watch, we can all take something away from this film, even if it's just how well done the movie was made. put together and portrayed.
KiteSpotter - Kitesurf wind and weather forecast
Weather and Sports
App
Wind strength is not the only indication for kitesurfing. KiteSpotter takes into account strength,...