Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Christina Haynes (148 KP) rated The Cruel Prince in Books
Jul 24, 2018
The Cruel Prince
Jude is a mortal in a Fae world. She was brought into that world when a Faerie called Madoc killed her Mother and Father. He took her, her twin sister Taryn and older (half Fae sister) Vivi to his mansion and raised her as his own. She learnt how to sword fight, and how to strategise as if she was Fae. She wanted to be like the Fae. she grew to love their world and not want to go back to the human realm. But she never wanted to be them. She did want to be like them, but better.
"Of course I want to be like them. They’re beautiful as blades forged in some divine fire. They will live forever."
The Fae don't treat the humans well, they use them as slaves or take them as wives or husbands. Though that could be see as a nice thing, the latter is not. They drug them with Fae magic and most humans are unaware of where they are and whom their company is. Truth is Fae would die out if it wasn't for humans. Humans breed and most have more than one. Fae don't or wait a long time and some only have one child. Not all Fae are bad, sure Madoc killed her parents but he also raised her and her sister and treated them rather well. This gives her respect with the other Fae, as Madoc is the kings General and very powerful one at that. But Fae can be bad, they can be mean and nasty.
Cardan is the worst.
When Jude looks at him, she hates him. He hates her too. But when they look at each other they can't breathe.
This is the story of Jude and Cardan. Jude is wanting to be better than the Fae, she is tired of them being horrible to her and humans alike. She wants Cardan to stop being nasty, she wants to be a knight for the palace. She wants to do something. Cardan wants to get drunk and drink his life away. To carry on being the Cruel Prince.
That's all about to change for them both. But one will lose and the other will gain... for now.
This book is brilliant, the twist at the end is something to look forward too. It's got a slow start, but the writing is great so that helps. But once you get half way and you uncover the story, your be hooked. I promise... remember Fae can't lie.
I can't wait for 'The Wicked King' 2019
4.5 – I REALLY LIKED IT (because of the slow start - but doesn't mean it was bad... I just wanted to know the story earlier as I'm impatient)
Love, Christina
"Of course I want to be like them. They’re beautiful as blades forged in some divine fire. They will live forever."
The Fae don't treat the humans well, they use them as slaves or take them as wives or husbands. Though that could be see as a nice thing, the latter is not. They drug them with Fae magic and most humans are unaware of where they are and whom their company is. Truth is Fae would die out if it wasn't for humans. Humans breed and most have more than one. Fae don't or wait a long time and some only have one child. Not all Fae are bad, sure Madoc killed her parents but he also raised her and her sister and treated them rather well. This gives her respect with the other Fae, as Madoc is the kings General and very powerful one at that. But Fae can be bad, they can be mean and nasty.
Cardan is the worst.
When Jude looks at him, she hates him. He hates her too. But when they look at each other they can't breathe.
This is the story of Jude and Cardan. Jude is wanting to be better than the Fae, she is tired of them being horrible to her and humans alike. She wants Cardan to stop being nasty, she wants to be a knight for the palace. She wants to do something. Cardan wants to get drunk and drink his life away. To carry on being the Cruel Prince.
That's all about to change for them both. But one will lose and the other will gain... for now.
This book is brilliant, the twist at the end is something to look forward too. It's got a slow start, but the writing is great so that helps. But once you get half way and you uncover the story, your be hooked. I promise... remember Fae can't lie.
I can't wait for 'The Wicked King' 2019
4.5 – I REALLY LIKED IT (because of the slow start - but doesn't mean it was bad... I just wanted to know the story earlier as I'm impatient)
Love, Christina
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
When I heard the news last year that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted yet again, I was like “are you freaking serious”? After the successful Toby Maguire trilogy (though the less said about “Spider-Man 3” the better) and the mildly successful “Amazing Spider-Man” duo with Andrew Garfield only finishing in 2014, did we REALLY need another reboot? More dramatic spider biting? More Uncle Ben spouting then dying? The same old – same old, rewarmed in a pan with a bit of red wine added just to stop it feeling so dry and tasteless.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
I was introduced to Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (the amazing book series written by Alvin Schwartz back in 1981) in my Junior High history class. An odd place for sure to listen to this amazing collection of stories, and yet it displayed how these stories are impactful even if you aren’t reading them around a campfire in the middle of the woods. Schwartz had written two additional sequels to his stories in 1984 and 1991 and the incredibly creepy illustrations (by Stephen Gammell) helped to complete a collection of books that are at home in anyone’s collection both young and old.
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
Debbiereadsbook (1166 KP) rated Charles (Learning to Love #1) in Books
Jul 28, 2021
deep and complex emotions involved, but I loved it!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarain, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Once upon a time, there was a reader much like yourself. She read for pleasure, but also had fallen down the slippery slope of reading to review, so every book she read needed a review written. Fun, but hard work sometimes, especially when said reader found herself in a book funk of EPIC proportions, and that almost every book she read, was dumped.
Then THIS book landed in her queue to read and review. There had been lots of books dumped this past week, and there weren't many review books in her queue, but this one was asked for ages ago, and so she wanted to read it. So on a quiet evening at work, she jumped in.
And she was pulled back into the small Cornish village that this book is set, the same one that feature in the HIS series, and she was pulled deeper and deeper and she did not stop reading! Well, she did, but only because she was at work! Going home, and she finished this book, staying up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past her bedtime, and she loved it!
She loved Charles. Charles is the third son of an Earl, but he just wants to use his degree to help children who might slip through the net, much like he did. His undiagnosed dyslexia meant he did not get the help he needed as a child, and he doesn't want that for another child. He sees the world differently and wants to help. Applying for the teachers job for a group of 4/5 year olds is his dream job. But the head doesn't think Charles is qualified enough but offers Charles a different sort of job. To bring a smile to his friend's face again.
The reader loved Hugo too. Even though Hugo isn't given a voice, the reader heard him good and well when he speaks. When he touches Charles, when Charles touches him. Hugo was HEARD. Hugo's calling is questioned but his faith is not. He needs to make a decision about fully committing to the church, but he also needs to heal first. Charles helps him to heal, inside and out.
The reader loved that Hugo doesn't hold Charles' history against him. Loved the fact that Hugo almost embraced it. The reader was made to cry. Charles has a deep soul, and he wears his emotions on his face and Hugo sees Charles, really SEES him.
The reader loved that Kier and Mitch, from His Haven. Charles and Kier are best friends. Loved that Kier saw Charles too, just in a different way to Hugo. The reader loved that Charles and his brother George got on soooooooooo much better towards the end of the book than the beginning!
The reader found this a very emotional book. Whether that was because of Charles, or Hugo or them both together, she wasn't quite sure, but she loved that it was. There are deep and complex emotions in this book, and it made the reader slow her reading down, to fully appreciate them.
And the epilogue?? Oh, the reader bawled her heart out at that, she really did!
So, all in all, the reader LOVED this book! The reader wants more of this author!
And the reader lived happily ever after, because lots of this author's books are now settled on her kindle!
The end, with 5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Once upon a time, there was a reader much like yourself. She read for pleasure, but also had fallen down the slippery slope of reading to review, so every book she read needed a review written. Fun, but hard work sometimes, especially when said reader found herself in a book funk of EPIC proportions, and that almost every book she read, was dumped.
Then THIS book landed in her queue to read and review. There had been lots of books dumped this past week, and there weren't many review books in her queue, but this one was asked for ages ago, and so she wanted to read it. So on a quiet evening at work, she jumped in.
And she was pulled back into the small Cornish village that this book is set, the same one that feature in the HIS series, and she was pulled deeper and deeper and she did not stop reading! Well, she did, but only because she was at work! Going home, and she finished this book, staying up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past her bedtime, and she loved it!
She loved Charles. Charles is the third son of an Earl, but he just wants to use his degree to help children who might slip through the net, much like he did. His undiagnosed dyslexia meant he did not get the help he needed as a child, and he doesn't want that for another child. He sees the world differently and wants to help. Applying for the teachers job for a group of 4/5 year olds is his dream job. But the head doesn't think Charles is qualified enough but offers Charles a different sort of job. To bring a smile to his friend's face again.
The reader loved Hugo too. Even though Hugo isn't given a voice, the reader heard him good and well when he speaks. When he touches Charles, when Charles touches him. Hugo was HEARD. Hugo's calling is questioned but his faith is not. He needs to make a decision about fully committing to the church, but he also needs to heal first. Charles helps him to heal, inside and out.
The reader loved that Hugo doesn't hold Charles' history against him. Loved the fact that Hugo almost embraced it. The reader was made to cry. Charles has a deep soul, and he wears his emotions on his face and Hugo sees Charles, really SEES him.
The reader loved that Kier and Mitch, from His Haven. Charles and Kier are best friends. Loved that Kier saw Charles too, just in a different way to Hugo. The reader loved that Charles and his brother George got on soooooooooo much better towards the end of the book than the beginning!
The reader found this a very emotional book. Whether that was because of Charles, or Hugo or them both together, she wasn't quite sure, but she loved that it was. There are deep and complex emotions in this book, and it made the reader slow her reading down, to fully appreciate them.
And the epilogue?? Oh, the reader bawled her heart out at that, she really did!
So, all in all, the reader LOVED this book! The reader wants more of this author!
And the reader lived happily ever after, because lots of this author's books are now settled on her kindle!
The end, with 5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Gaia GPS Classic
Navigation and Travel
App
►► WARNING - DOWNLOAD THE NEW APP INSTEAD Instead of buying this app (Gaia GPS Classic), please...
Lingvo Live Dictionary
Education and Reference
App
Lingvo Live is a service for all who seriously study foreign languages. It is a collection of top...
Pili Pop English: learn English for kids
Education and Games
App
Pili Pop helps your child become bilingual by practicing their English oral skills every day! Winner...
Natacha (374 KP) rated Red Rising in Books
Jan 23, 2020
More reviews on my blog: https://natachainreviewland.wordpress.com/
Red Rising is another book that I struggle to rate. I did enjoy the book but it didn't blow my mind. I think it's just an "It's not you, it's me" kind of situation. For the best part of the story, I felt like I was reading a retelling of the Hunger Games (and it was a movie I felt it was just ok, haven't read the books) and mixed with The Punisher (guys loses his wife and needs to get his revenge). I had fun but that's all.
Things I liked:
-The writing was very good. Simple, clear, just the right amount of information and exposition to make us understand the world and characters.
-We have a cast of charters with different and distinct personalities and well fleshed out.
-I really enjoyed the fourth part of the book. At this point, I felt like it lost the Hunger Game vibe. We don't have just one person that needs to take down the system but a whole army that marches against corruption.
-Towards the end, we had two nice twists. One of them had been foreshadowed for a while and the second one I personally saw it coming. Although to be honest when you have 20 pages left you can guess that things will go in a different direction what the author is making you believe. Despite that, I really liked those twists.
-I really like Darrow and Mustang dynamic and relationship. I thought it was well done and it felt natural.
-Now that the Huger Game part of the story is done I'm curious to see what Darrow will do outside in the world and how his plan will unfold.
Things I didn't like
I don't have many negatives. There was nothing wrong with the story but I'll try to point some aspect that bothered me.
-As I mention I didn't care about Hunger Game and throughout a large part of the story I couldn't help but thinking of the similarities.
-I'm a little tired of the "They kill my wife and I need to get revenge and keep her dream alive" trope.
-The story is written in first-person POV and present tense and this is really my least favourite way to tell a story.
-I feel like Darrow is a little bit of a Gary Stu. On so many occasion we have Darrow say things like "I'm stronger, I'm taller, I'm faster than he/she, I know better than them" etc. This is why I don't like first-person POV. When it's the author or another person telling us that the main character is stronger or taller or whatever it feels like an observation. When we have the main character telling us about the fact that they are better than everyone else, for me, they become across as obnoxious and annoying. And because of that, I struggle to really connect with Darrow.
-Rape is used a couple of times to move the plot forward. I don't mind when it's used once but when it's used again and again it feels like the author didn't know what else to do to get the plot going.
So here you have it. It wasn't a bad book there was nothing wrong with it and I understand why so many people rave about it. But personally, I couldn't get into the "this is a great book" place. I'm curious about the rest of the series, I don't feel the need to start right away like with other series, but I will get to the second book eventually.
Red Rising is another book that I struggle to rate. I did enjoy the book but it didn't blow my mind. I think it's just an "It's not you, it's me" kind of situation. For the best part of the story, I felt like I was reading a retelling of the Hunger Games (and it was a movie I felt it was just ok, haven't read the books) and mixed with The Punisher (guys loses his wife and needs to get his revenge). I had fun but that's all.
Things I liked:
-The writing was very good. Simple, clear, just the right amount of information and exposition to make us understand the world and characters.
-We have a cast of charters with different and distinct personalities and well fleshed out.
-I really enjoyed the fourth part of the book. At this point, I felt like it lost the Hunger Game vibe. We don't have just one person that needs to take down the system but a whole army that marches against corruption.
-Towards the end, we had two nice twists. One of them had been foreshadowed for a while and the second one I personally saw it coming. Although to be honest when you have 20 pages left you can guess that things will go in a different direction what the author is making you believe. Despite that, I really liked those twists.
-I really like Darrow and Mustang dynamic and relationship. I thought it was well done and it felt natural.
-Now that the Huger Game part of the story is done I'm curious to see what Darrow will do outside in the world and how his plan will unfold.
Things I didn't like
I don't have many negatives. There was nothing wrong with the story but I'll try to point some aspect that bothered me.
-As I mention I didn't care about Hunger Game and throughout a large part of the story I couldn't help but thinking of the similarities.
-I'm a little tired of the "They kill my wife and I need to get revenge and keep her dream alive" trope.
-The story is written in first-person POV and present tense and this is really my least favourite way to tell a story.
-I feel like Darrow is a little bit of a Gary Stu. On so many occasion we have Darrow say things like "I'm stronger, I'm taller, I'm faster than he/she, I know better than them" etc. This is why I don't like first-person POV. When it's the author or another person telling us that the main character is stronger or taller or whatever it feels like an observation. When we have the main character telling us about the fact that they are better than everyone else, for me, they become across as obnoxious and annoying. And because of that, I struggle to really connect with Darrow.
-Rape is used a couple of times to move the plot forward. I don't mind when it's used once but when it's used again and again it feels like the author didn't know what else to do to get the plot going.
So here you have it. It wasn't a bad book there was nothing wrong with it and I understand why so many people rave about it. But personally, I couldn't get into the "this is a great book" place. I'm curious about the rest of the series, I don't feel the need to start right away like with other series, but I will get to the second book eventually.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Transporter 3 (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Frank Martin (Jason Statham), the finest driver for hire in the world is back in “Transporter 3”. This time out Frank is forced to deliver a captive girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova), to Odessa from his home in Marseilles .
Frank has been recruited against his will by a scheming individual named Johnson (Robert Knepper), who plans to force the Leader of the Ukrainian government to sign a treaty that will allow for dumping of toxic chemicals.
Johnson has a very vital package from Frank to deliver and thanks to an explosive device attached to Frank and Valentina, he has the reluctant services that make a very in demand individual.
As if matters were not complicated enough for Frank, there is a band of thugs hot on his trail as he and Valentina race through the scenic landscapes of Europe.
Frank is determined to find a way to remove the explosive device attached to his wrist, and Valentina is more resigned to her fate as she sees that no matter what, they are both soon to be dead and should live what little life they have left as best as they can.
Along the way, Frank unleashes some of the signature action sequences of the series which as always include outrageous fight scenes that are as well choreographed as anything Jackie Chan has ever unleashed. Frank is a whirring dervish of action and destruction which bellies his soft spoken man of few words persona.
The film also has plenty of car chases to go with the fight sequences and while they are getting more and more over the top with each new segment of the series, still offer excitement. One such scene involves Frank racing through town on a bike to keep pace with his car after being separated from it. Since Frank or Valentina will go boom should they move beyond a certain distance from the tricked out Audi, you can imagine the extreme steps Frank takes to keep this from happening.
While the action of the film is good, I have to say that it is starting to wear thin after the two previous films. The original “Transporter” was a very fresh film as it blended over the top action and well choreographed fight sequences with a European drama to create a unique hybrid of American and European cinema.
The sequel, “Transporter 2”, relied heavily upon the outrageous stunts and less on plots yet still satisfied thanks to the non-stop action and charisma of Statham.
This time out the dialogue is so stunted and bland that you never see any chemistry between the lead characters develop and it seems a very forced pairing. It was reported that Natalya Rudakova was spotted going to work by Producer Luc Besson who cast her in the film even though she had no acting experience and while she does a good job, they just do not seem to fit with one another in a way that makes the audience care or believe in their situation.
The plot of the film is decent enough for an action film but lacks any real twists or turns which causes the film to unfold with few surprises. While the finale is acceptable, I wanted a better payoff as the series has yet to top the oil fight scene in the first film in my opinion.
In then end the film is a mixed bag that will appeal to fans of the series but even they will have to admit that the tread is starting to wear thin on the tires of this series.
Frank has been recruited against his will by a scheming individual named Johnson (Robert Knepper), who plans to force the Leader of the Ukrainian government to sign a treaty that will allow for dumping of toxic chemicals.
Johnson has a very vital package from Frank to deliver and thanks to an explosive device attached to Frank and Valentina, he has the reluctant services that make a very in demand individual.
As if matters were not complicated enough for Frank, there is a band of thugs hot on his trail as he and Valentina race through the scenic landscapes of Europe.
Frank is determined to find a way to remove the explosive device attached to his wrist, and Valentina is more resigned to her fate as she sees that no matter what, they are both soon to be dead and should live what little life they have left as best as they can.
Along the way, Frank unleashes some of the signature action sequences of the series which as always include outrageous fight scenes that are as well choreographed as anything Jackie Chan has ever unleashed. Frank is a whirring dervish of action and destruction which bellies his soft spoken man of few words persona.
The film also has plenty of car chases to go with the fight sequences and while they are getting more and more over the top with each new segment of the series, still offer excitement. One such scene involves Frank racing through town on a bike to keep pace with his car after being separated from it. Since Frank or Valentina will go boom should they move beyond a certain distance from the tricked out Audi, you can imagine the extreme steps Frank takes to keep this from happening.
While the action of the film is good, I have to say that it is starting to wear thin after the two previous films. The original “Transporter” was a very fresh film as it blended over the top action and well choreographed fight sequences with a European drama to create a unique hybrid of American and European cinema.
The sequel, “Transporter 2”, relied heavily upon the outrageous stunts and less on plots yet still satisfied thanks to the non-stop action and charisma of Statham.
This time out the dialogue is so stunted and bland that you never see any chemistry between the lead characters develop and it seems a very forced pairing. It was reported that Natalya Rudakova was spotted going to work by Producer Luc Besson who cast her in the film even though she had no acting experience and while she does a good job, they just do not seem to fit with one another in a way that makes the audience care or believe in their situation.
The plot of the film is decent enough for an action film but lacks any real twists or turns which causes the film to unfold with few surprises. While the finale is acceptable, I wanted a better payoff as the series has yet to top the oil fight scene in the first film in my opinion.
In then end the film is a mixed bag that will appeal to fans of the series but even they will have to admit that the tread is starting to wear thin on the tires of this series.