Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Fruitvale Station (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2020
Here is another movie that was put up for consideration for my upcoming book 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential Films. It didn’t quite make the final cut, but is part of the long list of honourable mentions – movies that are easy to like and recommend, but aren’t quite of the very highest quality in their respective genres.
Borderline superstar Michael B. Jordan owes his career to Ryan Coogler, which began in earnest in 2013 with the strong effort of true story Fruitvale Station, highlighting the life and final moments of Oscar Grant, who was one of a tragically long list of innocent young men murdered by the police in modern America. Since then he has gone on to star as the eponymous Creed and as the popular Erik Killmonger in Black Panther, making him more or less the most famous black actor under forty currently at work.
I mention him first because having seen the other two films first, I have to admit I wasn’t quite getting it. I mean he is fine in both movies, but nothing world beating. Then you go back to his acheivement in the earlier film and begin to see what he might be capable of given the right scripts. He pretty much embodies Oscar Grant to a degree you believe you are watching a documentary. Which is the major plus point of Ryan Coogler’s direction also.
By pulling us in to the family life of Oscar, as if we were a fly on the wall, we become connected to their story as if we were part of that inner circle, making the inevitable horror of events hit home all the harder. We watch mundane events and conversations take place with a shadow of foreboding that never crosses over into foreshadowing or signposting. The balance is very nicely done.
Melonie Diaz, as girlfriend Sophina, and especially the ever wonderful Octavia Spencer, as loving but grounded mother Wanda, offer solid support, but the camera clings to Jordan by choice, asking us to place ourselves in his shoes and feel the empathy first hand. It is a sober journey, almost totally devoid of directorial flair, which is both a strength and a weakness, ultimately.
With such an awful, heart-rending subject, it can be difficult to remove yourself into a dispassionate view of a film artistically, as the message overpowers your emotions. The best thing that can be said in this case is that the drama never crosses the line of sentimentality or overkill; it merely presents events as they were and asks you to draw your own conclusions. Having said that, I can’t over-praise it simply because the subject needs to be seen, heard, discussed and acted upon with total immediacy in the real world.
This film is already seven years old, and the issues are more pertinent than ever before, as the BLM movement rages all over the world, but especially in the USA, where the culpability and violence of police officers must be addressed and resolved before the loss of one more innocent life. The message delivered by the film is clear and unambiguous – it has to be heeded. And in that sense it is an indespensible film of great power, I would advise you to see.
And with that, it seems a moot point to criticise it, because there isn’t anything negative to say that would say anything useful. I would just say again that it doesn’t quite make the grade of the best 200 films since the Millennium. Whereas, BlacKkKlansman does. An unfair comparison in many ways, but an obvious one in others. See both. Think about them, do what you can, and help make hatred and prejudice a sad fact of history.
Decinemal Rating: 70
Borderline superstar Michael B. Jordan owes his career to Ryan Coogler, which began in earnest in 2013 with the strong effort of true story Fruitvale Station, highlighting the life and final moments of Oscar Grant, who was one of a tragically long list of innocent young men murdered by the police in modern America. Since then he has gone on to star as the eponymous Creed and as the popular Erik Killmonger in Black Panther, making him more or less the most famous black actor under forty currently at work.
I mention him first because having seen the other two films first, I have to admit I wasn’t quite getting it. I mean he is fine in both movies, but nothing world beating. Then you go back to his acheivement in the earlier film and begin to see what he might be capable of given the right scripts. He pretty much embodies Oscar Grant to a degree you believe you are watching a documentary. Which is the major plus point of Ryan Coogler’s direction also.
By pulling us in to the family life of Oscar, as if we were a fly on the wall, we become connected to their story as if we were part of that inner circle, making the inevitable horror of events hit home all the harder. We watch mundane events and conversations take place with a shadow of foreboding that never crosses over into foreshadowing or signposting. The balance is very nicely done.
Melonie Diaz, as girlfriend Sophina, and especially the ever wonderful Octavia Spencer, as loving but grounded mother Wanda, offer solid support, but the camera clings to Jordan by choice, asking us to place ourselves in his shoes and feel the empathy first hand. It is a sober journey, almost totally devoid of directorial flair, which is both a strength and a weakness, ultimately.
With such an awful, heart-rending subject, it can be difficult to remove yourself into a dispassionate view of a film artistically, as the message overpowers your emotions. The best thing that can be said in this case is that the drama never crosses the line of sentimentality or overkill; it merely presents events as they were and asks you to draw your own conclusions. Having said that, I can’t over-praise it simply because the subject needs to be seen, heard, discussed and acted upon with total immediacy in the real world.
This film is already seven years old, and the issues are more pertinent than ever before, as the BLM movement rages all over the world, but especially in the USA, where the culpability and violence of police officers must be addressed and resolved before the loss of one more innocent life. The message delivered by the film is clear and unambiguous – it has to be heeded. And in that sense it is an indespensible film of great power, I would advise you to see.
And with that, it seems a moot point to criticise it, because there isn’t anything negative to say that would say anything useful. I would just say again that it doesn’t quite make the grade of the best 200 films since the Millennium. Whereas, BlacKkKlansman does. An unfair comparison in many ways, but an obvious one in others. See both. Think about them, do what you can, and help make hatred and prejudice a sad fact of history.
Decinemal Rating: 70
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Phantom Thread (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“There’s an air of quiet death in this house”.
The alleged acting swan-song of Daniel Day-Lewis (“Lincoln“) sees him deliver a brilliantly intense portrayal of a maestro in his craft with all the quirks and egotistical faults that come with that position.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Lots of hens… but turkeys would be more appropriate.
I was not a great fan of the original Venom, although I did find aspects of it to like. Unfortunately, for me, the sequel – “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” – delivered even less. And I found aspects of it positively distasteful.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Darkest Lies in Books
Jul 26, 2017
Believable plot regarding child abduction (1 more)
The mystery is compelling
Frustrating protagonist, (2 more)
Extremely predictable
Good case for why civilians shouldn’t go rogue and get in the way of police work
A frustrating abduction mystery
You know that age in every teenager’s life where they start to become a little bit rebellious? Telling little white lies, sneaking out, hanging out with crowds they know the family wouldn’t approve of? It can be a scary time for parents, who knows who’s out there? The Darkest Lies is every parent’s worst nightmare and follows a mother who finds her world shattered when her daughter goes missing.
I’m going to come right out and say that this book was frustrating for me. The synopsis really caught my eye and the idea for the plot is intriguing. Unfortunately, issues with the protagonist as well as a shaky and highly predictable plot made for a mediocre experience.
The narration in this book was a little bit weird and I had a hard time getting used to it. It is primarily told using first person point of view though switches regularly to second person as Melanie speaks directly to Beth in her inner monologue. It was just uncomfortable to read.
What’s so bad about first person point of view? See the issue for me with first person narration is that it’s easy to end up alienating readers if it’s difficult to relate to the narrator, and boy did I dislike Melanie. To be blunt, she was really annoying. She was self-centered, mean-spirited, often blinded by her own hubris, and near the end has a bit of a messiah complex going which I found completely ridiculous. She was constantly complaining about the police’s incompetence, throwing herself in the way of the investigation despite being asked multiple times to back off before she could destroy their leads. “I couldn’t go home. I was too furious, too desperate to prove I was right and the police were wrong.”
I get it, she’s consumed with guilt and grief over what happened to her daughter, over not being able to protect her. Desperate people tend to lash out and do stupid things, but I just couldn’t believe anyone would be so foolish. Melanie’s antics do lead up to something important in the plot, but honestly she didn’t need any help making a fool of herself. Before all the crazy came out she was constantly breaking down every female character she encountered, often focusing in on their looks and finding ways to insult them. Neighbors, police officers working on the case, teenagers, it didn’t matter. There are numerous examples of Melanie exhibiting this jealous personality throughout the course of the book.
She spends more time going on drunken rampages pointing fingers at everyone in town, harassing the police, treating her husband like garbage while emotionally cheating with a friend, and avoiding actually seeing and being there for her daughter. While her awful actions over the course of the book is an important aspect of the plot, I just couldn’t justify it because she never learns and remains stubborn even after being told off multiple times. Add on top how stereotypically reckless she acts at the end instead of seeking help from the police because of course she doesn’t need them and I just couldn’t dig the story.
I liked the central idea around the dangers of teens sneaking out and trusting strangers, but the story meandered so much it kind of gets lost in Melanie’s mental collapse and crazed search for the culprit. The plot attempts to use some misdirection to keep the reader guessing but the construction was just sloppy, and the actual culprit isn’t even the character that Melanie cares about the most. Every “bad” character is so blatantly obvious that the advertised twist is really easy to see. I kept on reading because I wanted to know the how and the why. I think there was potential here, and if the author wanted to stick to the narrative that Mel is actually really nice and is just being manipulated then why does she remain every bit as petty and controlling? She is still unable to see past her own emotions and unable to learn from her mistakes. I wished that this could’ve ended with more character growth for the main character.
I’m going to come right out and say that this book was frustrating for me. The synopsis really caught my eye and the idea for the plot is intriguing. Unfortunately, issues with the protagonist as well as a shaky and highly predictable plot made for a mediocre experience.
The narration in this book was a little bit weird and I had a hard time getting used to it. It is primarily told using first person point of view though switches regularly to second person as Melanie speaks directly to Beth in her inner monologue. It was just uncomfortable to read.
What’s so bad about first person point of view? See the issue for me with first person narration is that it’s easy to end up alienating readers if it’s difficult to relate to the narrator, and boy did I dislike Melanie. To be blunt, she was really annoying. She was self-centered, mean-spirited, often blinded by her own hubris, and near the end has a bit of a messiah complex going which I found completely ridiculous. She was constantly complaining about the police’s incompetence, throwing herself in the way of the investigation despite being asked multiple times to back off before she could destroy their leads. “I couldn’t go home. I was too furious, too desperate to prove I was right and the police were wrong.”
I get it, she’s consumed with guilt and grief over what happened to her daughter, over not being able to protect her. Desperate people tend to lash out and do stupid things, but I just couldn’t believe anyone would be so foolish. Melanie’s antics do lead up to something important in the plot, but honestly she didn’t need any help making a fool of herself. Before all the crazy came out she was constantly breaking down every female character she encountered, often focusing in on their looks and finding ways to insult them. Neighbors, police officers working on the case, teenagers, it didn’t matter. There are numerous examples of Melanie exhibiting this jealous personality throughout the course of the book.
She spends more time going on drunken rampages pointing fingers at everyone in town, harassing the police, treating her husband like garbage while emotionally cheating with a friend, and avoiding actually seeing and being there for her daughter. While her awful actions over the course of the book is an important aspect of the plot, I just couldn’t justify it because she never learns and remains stubborn even after being told off multiple times. Add on top how stereotypically reckless she acts at the end instead of seeking help from the police because of course she doesn’t need them and I just couldn’t dig the story.
I liked the central idea around the dangers of teens sneaking out and trusting strangers, but the story meandered so much it kind of gets lost in Melanie’s mental collapse and crazed search for the culprit. The plot attempts to use some misdirection to keep the reader guessing but the construction was just sloppy, and the actual culprit isn’t even the character that Melanie cares about the most. Every “bad” character is so blatantly obvious that the advertised twist is really easy to see. I kept on reading because I wanted to know the how and the why. I think there was potential here, and if the author wanted to stick to the narrative that Mel is actually really nice and is just being manipulated then why does she remain every bit as petty and controlling? She is still unable to see past her own emotions and unable to learn from her mistakes. I wished that this could’ve ended with more character growth for the main character.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Protector in Books
Jun 12, 2019
Girl Doesn’t Take Her Mate’s Crap in this YA Fantasy Romance Novel
Contains spoilers, click to show
Genre: Fantasy, YA
Word Count: 86,170
Average Goodreads Rating: 3.75 out of 5 stars
My rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Faith thought she was a normal human girl. Then she turned 18 and started developing abilities. Around the same time, a mysterious girl named Belle showed up and explained to Faith that she was really a Halfling, who belonged to an alien planet. Not only that, but she had the powerful ability of Forewarning, a skill that was highly coveted, especially by the Loverias and the Wincrests, two rival royal families on the brink of going to war with each other. Things get even more complicated when Faith forms a mated bond with Prince Davio Loveria– right before finding out her long-absent father is Prince Alexo Wincrest, Davio’s sworn enemy.
Caught in an impending war on a foreign planet, Faith must think and learn fast to keep herself from becoming a political pawn while also keeping her family safe.
Faith is a fucking badass and I love her. She acts like a teenaged girl, with all the angst and drama that comes with it, but at the same times she’s smart, and she won’t take shit, especially not from Davio. I love how resourceful she is and how quickly she’s able to adapt to a foreign planet with different cultures and abilities. But at the same time, she’s not a Mary Sue. She does have issues with learning the culture and controlling her abilities. She also doesn’t deal well with having her world turned upside down but her reactions aren’t unrealistic and they make me love her that much more.
Davio, however, is a piece of shit. I knocked off a star just because he exists. He’s a pompous brat with less maturity and poise than a two-year-old. When he finally accepts that he’s mated to Faith, he shows his “love” by controlling her and ordering her around. He doesn’t let her be alone because she needs to be protected. He demands that she either be with him or one of his bodyguards at all time, effectively keeping her a prisoner. This is supposedly because she has Forewarning, which makes her likely to get kidnapped or killed. I would have an easier time believing that if she had ever gotten attacked in the book. But the only people who attack her are Davio’s own bodyguards. No one else gives a shit.
He also loves ordering her around. He’ll order her to get showered and dressed in two minutes. He also orders her to betray her father. Davio is actually shocked when Faith won’t give him intimate secrets about how to take down her father. He accuses her of being a traitor when she refuses to be part of any plan that will get her father killed or kidnapped.
Davio hates Faith’s father for being from the wrong country, he always thinks he’s right, and he’s controlling to boot. He’s basically teenaged Trump.
Davio is the biggest problem in the book. Almost everything else I enjoyed. I loved the world building and how the mated bond was portrayed. Even though Faith and Davio were connected through the bond and couldn’t be apart very long without feeling anxious and depressed, they weren’t brainwashed by it. They still didn’t trust or even love each other for most of the book and they could identify what feelings were real and what was from the bond. It’s rare when a book can have soulmates without having insta-love, but Protector pulled it off.
I’m still confused by Faith’s parents, however. Faith’s mother raised her by herself on Earth after getting abandoned by Alexo. But when he shows up eighteen years later and has a brief conversation with her, she’s completely willing to travel to a foreign planet, be banned from going back to Earth. She also needs to pretend to be his wife despite hating him for abandoning her. I honestly have no idea why but that might get explained in later books.
Word Count: 86,170
Average Goodreads Rating: 3.75 out of 5 stars
My rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Faith thought she was a normal human girl. Then she turned 18 and started developing abilities. Around the same time, a mysterious girl named Belle showed up and explained to Faith that she was really a Halfling, who belonged to an alien planet. Not only that, but she had the powerful ability of Forewarning, a skill that was highly coveted, especially by the Loverias and the Wincrests, two rival royal families on the brink of going to war with each other. Things get even more complicated when Faith forms a mated bond with Prince Davio Loveria– right before finding out her long-absent father is Prince Alexo Wincrest, Davio’s sworn enemy.
Caught in an impending war on a foreign planet, Faith must think and learn fast to keep herself from becoming a political pawn while also keeping her family safe.
Faith is a fucking badass and I love her. She acts like a teenaged girl, with all the angst and drama that comes with it, but at the same times she’s smart, and she won’t take shit, especially not from Davio. I love how resourceful she is and how quickly she’s able to adapt to a foreign planet with different cultures and abilities. But at the same time, she’s not a Mary Sue. She does have issues with learning the culture and controlling her abilities. She also doesn’t deal well with having her world turned upside down but her reactions aren’t unrealistic and they make me love her that much more.
Davio, however, is a piece of shit. I knocked off a star just because he exists. He’s a pompous brat with less maturity and poise than a two-year-old. When he finally accepts that he’s mated to Faith, he shows his “love” by controlling her and ordering her around. He doesn’t let her be alone because she needs to be protected. He demands that she either be with him or one of his bodyguards at all time, effectively keeping her a prisoner. This is supposedly because she has Forewarning, which makes her likely to get kidnapped or killed. I would have an easier time believing that if she had ever gotten attacked in the book. But the only people who attack her are Davio’s own bodyguards. No one else gives a shit.
He also loves ordering her around. He’ll order her to get showered and dressed in two minutes. He also orders her to betray her father. Davio is actually shocked when Faith won’t give him intimate secrets about how to take down her father. He accuses her of being a traitor when she refuses to be part of any plan that will get her father killed or kidnapped.
Davio hates Faith’s father for being from the wrong country, he always thinks he’s right, and he’s controlling to boot. He’s basically teenaged Trump.
Davio is the biggest problem in the book. Almost everything else I enjoyed. I loved the world building and how the mated bond was portrayed. Even though Faith and Davio were connected through the bond and couldn’t be apart very long without feeling anxious and depressed, they weren’t brainwashed by it. They still didn’t trust or even love each other for most of the book and they could identify what feelings were real and what was from the bond. It’s rare when a book can have soulmates without having insta-love, but Protector pulled it off.
I’m still confused by Faith’s parents, however. Faith’s mother raised her by herself on Earth after getting abandoned by Alexo. But when he shows up eighteen years later and has a brief conversation with her, she’s completely willing to travel to a foreign planet, be banned from going back to Earth. She also needs to pretend to be his wife despite hating him for abandoning her. I honestly have no idea why but that might get explained in later books.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Glory Road (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Sports films have long been a popular genre in Hollywood as classics such as Pride of the Yankees, The Natural, and Raging Bull are all examples of some of the finest examples of sports films which encapsulate the very essence of the sport they portray.
In the new film Glory Road Josh Lucas stars as Don Haskins, a girls Basketball coach who is given the chance to coach a Division 1 team at Texas Western in 1966.
The small school cannot offer the coach much in the way of amenities as Don and his family are required to live in the student’s dorm. Since his dreams of playing pro ball came to a halt after a knee injury, Haskins looks at his job as a chance for him to make a name for himself.
The task will be daunting as Texas Western is a very small school that puts the majority of its athletic budget into the football program leaving next to no money for the gym, new equipment, and recruiting of players.
After a frustrating attempt to recruit players at a local invitational, Haskins sets his sites on a young African American player who while big on attitude, is also big on potential.
With scholarships to offer, Haskins and his staff travel the nation and shock the conservative school by offering scholarships to 8 African American players. In a day and age when teams had at most 1-2 African American players; many of whom did not see much playing time; this is a risky move for the coach.
Undaunted, the coach begins the process of integrating his new players with his current players all of whom are Caucasian, which leads to some tension over starting rights, abilities, and styles.
Haskins is a no nonsense coach who is very strict in regards to grades, effort in practice, and above all avoiding late nights and carousing while the season is underway. Despite this, many players decide to test the will of the coach which raises issues of commitment to the team and discipline, all of which are standard staples of sports films.
When the season starts, a funny thing happens. Not only is the coach playing his African American players in a heavy rotation, but little Texas Western is winning their games and beating some of the more noted teams in the country in the process.
As their notoriety increases so does the amount of hostility directed towards the team from racially incensed fans who do not like the make up of the team and especially hate their success.
Despite this, the team finds itself in the National Championship game against powerful Kentucky coached by the legendary Adolph Rupp (Jon Voight), where Haskins makes history by starting and playing only his African American players which is a first in NCAA finals history.
While the marketing and trailers for the film certainly do not hesitate from telling you most of the above and underscoring that the team ends up in the finals and that the film is based on a true story, it is not about the final results, it is about the journey the team took getting there.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer is a master at knowing what the fans want and director James Gartner gives viewers a by the number film that delivers the goods. Yes, the film heavily uses all the sporting clichés from the ailing player, the us against the world mentality, the team of misfits, and so on all of which combines to offer little cinematic tension as it is very clear early on and from the ads where this film will end up.
Despite tipping their hand early and throughout, the filmmakers have decided not to rock the boat and have stuck with a tried and true formula that results with a winning albeit very predictable film.
Lucas does a solid job in the roll and makes the best of the material he has to work with. The game sequences are well managed and rousing which had members of my preview audience cheering.
While it offers little originality, Glory Road is a lot of fun, and despite mining every cliché in the book, is an entertaining time at the movies.
In the new film Glory Road Josh Lucas stars as Don Haskins, a girls Basketball coach who is given the chance to coach a Division 1 team at Texas Western in 1966.
The small school cannot offer the coach much in the way of amenities as Don and his family are required to live in the student’s dorm. Since his dreams of playing pro ball came to a halt after a knee injury, Haskins looks at his job as a chance for him to make a name for himself.
The task will be daunting as Texas Western is a very small school that puts the majority of its athletic budget into the football program leaving next to no money for the gym, new equipment, and recruiting of players.
After a frustrating attempt to recruit players at a local invitational, Haskins sets his sites on a young African American player who while big on attitude, is also big on potential.
With scholarships to offer, Haskins and his staff travel the nation and shock the conservative school by offering scholarships to 8 African American players. In a day and age when teams had at most 1-2 African American players; many of whom did not see much playing time; this is a risky move for the coach.
Undaunted, the coach begins the process of integrating his new players with his current players all of whom are Caucasian, which leads to some tension over starting rights, abilities, and styles.
Haskins is a no nonsense coach who is very strict in regards to grades, effort in practice, and above all avoiding late nights and carousing while the season is underway. Despite this, many players decide to test the will of the coach which raises issues of commitment to the team and discipline, all of which are standard staples of sports films.
When the season starts, a funny thing happens. Not only is the coach playing his African American players in a heavy rotation, but little Texas Western is winning their games and beating some of the more noted teams in the country in the process.
As their notoriety increases so does the amount of hostility directed towards the team from racially incensed fans who do not like the make up of the team and especially hate their success.
Despite this, the team finds itself in the National Championship game against powerful Kentucky coached by the legendary Adolph Rupp (Jon Voight), where Haskins makes history by starting and playing only his African American players which is a first in NCAA finals history.
While the marketing and trailers for the film certainly do not hesitate from telling you most of the above and underscoring that the team ends up in the finals and that the film is based on a true story, it is not about the final results, it is about the journey the team took getting there.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer is a master at knowing what the fans want and director James Gartner gives viewers a by the number film that delivers the goods. Yes, the film heavily uses all the sporting clichés from the ailing player, the us against the world mentality, the team of misfits, and so on all of which combines to offer little cinematic tension as it is very clear early on and from the ads where this film will end up.
Despite tipping their hand early and throughout, the filmmakers have decided not to rock the boat and have stuck with a tried and true formula that results with a winning albeit very predictable film.
Lucas does a solid job in the roll and makes the best of the material he has to work with. The game sequences are well managed and rousing which had members of my preview audience cheering.
While it offers little originality, Glory Road is a lot of fun, and despite mining every cliché in the book, is an entertaining time at the movies.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A robot you could take home to meet mother.
I was intrigued to watch the other day (purely for the interest in the technology employed of course!) a short Guardian video on the development of the world’s first fully functioning sex robot: a disturbing watch, requiring a fairly broad mind. Watching it on the same day as going to see Scarlett Johansson’s new film “Ghost in the Shell” though was a mistake, since the similarities between Johansson’s character (‘Major’) and the animatronic sex doll (‘Harmony’) were… erm… distracting.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Becs (244 KP) rated Monster Catchers in Books
Jul 6, 2019
Captivating middle grade novel!
You can also find this review on my blog: bookingwayreads.wordpress.com
Thank you to Smith Publicity and the author, George Brewington, for allowing me the wonderful opportunity to be a part of the Monster Catchers blog tour and for sending me a copy to read and review.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: death, kidnapping
"We can't always think of ourselves. There are so many creatures in the world that need love."
Main Characters:
Bailey Buckleby - the main character and co-owner of Buckleby and Sons. He's a monster catcher like his father, but questions how his father goes about the business. Very compassionate and has a good Frisbee throwing arm.
Dougie Buckleby - Bailey's father and the owner of Buckleby and Sons. He has taught Bailey everything he knows about being a monster catcher. A bit selfish by not really listening to Bailey, even though he always ends up being right.
Savannah - schoolmate of Bailey's turned friend. A part of the Bullhead Brigade, which Nikos is also a part of.
Henry - baby Swiss troll that is taken in by Dougie. But is he?
Candycane Boom - a loan shark that ends up teaming up with Axel Pazuzu. Later become an alley to Bailey, Savannah, and Nikos.
Nikos - a Minotaur that is hired to take down Bailey and his father but after being beaten, he joins forces.
Axel Pazuzu - a cynocephaly (part human, part dog that is a god). Known for scamming people worse than Candycane Boom. Ends up causing a lot of problems for Bailey, Savannah, and Dougie.
"Sometimes passion makes one do really, really stupid things. You mustn't beat yourself up about it."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Monster Catchers is a middle grade novel about friendship, adventure, sacrifices, saving the ones you love, with a hint of romance and drama. It starts with Bailey sitting at the register in the family shop, rereading In the Shadows of Monsters by his favorite monster catcher. Some teenage boys come in looking for trouble, but Bailey scares them off by showing them the monitor that shows the back room. This very back room is where the real business of Buckleby and Sons take place: monster catching.
Soon after the group of teenage boys leave, a customer comes in needing to have a 'pest' taken care of. Once the Buckleby's are hired, Candycane Boom comes in looking for another fairy friend for his current fairy. He picks on out while Bailey walks Henry on Whalefat Beach. This is where the two meet Axel Pazuzu a cynocephaly, which is a half human, half dog god creature. Axel tries buying Henry from Bailey, but he refuses because he doesn't want to loose this best friend. Bailey quickly heads home with Henry before Axel tries stealing Henry away.
That night, Dougie and Bailey head out to the customer's home to catch the little rascal that has been stealing all of the lights. Well, things don't go according to plane and instead of catching just one little goblin, they catch two and encounter about ten others. This doesn't turn out for Dougie as one of the goblins bites his finger off!
After they returned home, Bailey fell asleep. The next morning, he headed to school to give the report that was due but that he wasn't ready for. So he improvised and told about one of the real stories from In the Shadow of Monsters. Now, the thing with people within Monster Catchers, is that they don't believe that the monsters are real. They are in a constant denial, even when they've seen the monsters themselves. This sparks some major debate in Bailey's class.
Savannah ends up following Bailey back to the store where she is introduced to all the monsters in the back room and even eventually meets Axel Pazuzu when they head to the beach to walk Henry. Axel hires Candycane to get Henry from the Buckleby's. Well, this causes a bunch of different action packed scenes that will leave you turning the pages until the ending.
When you think monsters, you don't think of a father-son duo saving California. But that's just what Dougie and Bailey Buckleby do. For the right price, they will capture anything from goblins and trolls to harpies and fairies. If it's a monster of any sort, the Buckleby's are the one's to call. But, Bailey soon finds out that his father has been lying to him all of his life and it must be he who saves the people of the world. Monster Catcher is a fast-paced, action-packed adventure that will capture young hearts everywhere.
Character/ Story background and development -
I was generally surprised at how much development was within this little novel. Especially for it being book one in a series and a debut! Bailey's and his fathers development were some of the best. The two go from best buds to Bailey questioning everything about him to having to sacrifice him for the sake of the world. It just blew me away the relationship that the duo had as they were massively different, but brought very similar aspects to the relationship.
Plot -
George Brewington weaves lessons of friendship, morals, and action into this fantasy filled debut. Bailey's interest in monsters is heartwarming, especially when he finds out that monsters have feelings and all aren't bad like they are perceived to be.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I honestly didn't seem to find any spelling or grammatical errors that popped out or took away from the overall story. Monster Catchers is a very well-written novel.
Enjoyment -
I really enjoyed going on an adventure with Bailey and all the lovable monsters. I will most defiantly be rereading this. One thing I rather enjoyed, that I have to point out, is how George Brewington mixed extremely important world issues like: environmental issues, understanding differences, and sacrifices along with adding that fantasy aspect that is common among middle-grade novels.
Overall -
With the interwoven lessons and morals, the fun and quirky lines, the cliff hangers, discovering oneself, understanding differences, Monster Catchers encourages the reader to think beyond the words that are written.
Do I recommend? -
Yes! I highly recommend The Monster Catchers by George Brewington. It was such a cute little novel and I need more!!
"We either try or die, Bailey Boy."
Thank you to Smith Publicity and the author, George Brewington, for allowing me the wonderful opportunity to be a part of the Monster Catchers blog tour and for sending me a copy to read and review.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: death, kidnapping
"We can't always think of ourselves. There are so many creatures in the world that need love."
Main Characters:
Bailey Buckleby - the main character and co-owner of Buckleby and Sons. He's a monster catcher like his father, but questions how his father goes about the business. Very compassionate and has a good Frisbee throwing arm.
Dougie Buckleby - Bailey's father and the owner of Buckleby and Sons. He has taught Bailey everything he knows about being a monster catcher. A bit selfish by not really listening to Bailey, even though he always ends up being right.
Savannah - schoolmate of Bailey's turned friend. A part of the Bullhead Brigade, which Nikos is also a part of.
Henry - baby Swiss troll that is taken in by Dougie. But is he?
Candycane Boom - a loan shark that ends up teaming up with Axel Pazuzu. Later become an alley to Bailey, Savannah, and Nikos.
Nikos - a Minotaur that is hired to take down Bailey and his father but after being beaten, he joins forces.
Axel Pazuzu - a cynocephaly (part human, part dog that is a god). Known for scamming people worse than Candycane Boom. Ends up causing a lot of problems for Bailey, Savannah, and Dougie.
"Sometimes passion makes one do really, really stupid things. You mustn't beat yourself up about it."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Monster Catchers is a middle grade novel about friendship, adventure, sacrifices, saving the ones you love, with a hint of romance and drama. It starts with Bailey sitting at the register in the family shop, rereading In the Shadows of Monsters by his favorite monster catcher. Some teenage boys come in looking for trouble, but Bailey scares them off by showing them the monitor that shows the back room. This very back room is where the real business of Buckleby and Sons take place: monster catching.
Soon after the group of teenage boys leave, a customer comes in needing to have a 'pest' taken care of. Once the Buckleby's are hired, Candycane Boom comes in looking for another fairy friend for his current fairy. He picks on out while Bailey walks Henry on Whalefat Beach. This is where the two meet Axel Pazuzu a cynocephaly, which is a half human, half dog god creature. Axel tries buying Henry from Bailey, but he refuses because he doesn't want to loose this best friend. Bailey quickly heads home with Henry before Axel tries stealing Henry away.
That night, Dougie and Bailey head out to the customer's home to catch the little rascal that has been stealing all of the lights. Well, things don't go according to plane and instead of catching just one little goblin, they catch two and encounter about ten others. This doesn't turn out for Dougie as one of the goblins bites his finger off!
After they returned home, Bailey fell asleep. The next morning, he headed to school to give the report that was due but that he wasn't ready for. So he improvised and told about one of the real stories from In the Shadow of Monsters. Now, the thing with people within Monster Catchers, is that they don't believe that the monsters are real. They are in a constant denial, even when they've seen the monsters themselves. This sparks some major debate in Bailey's class.
Savannah ends up following Bailey back to the store where she is introduced to all the monsters in the back room and even eventually meets Axel Pazuzu when they head to the beach to walk Henry. Axel hires Candycane to get Henry from the Buckleby's. Well, this causes a bunch of different action packed scenes that will leave you turning the pages until the ending.
When you think monsters, you don't think of a father-son duo saving California. But that's just what Dougie and Bailey Buckleby do. For the right price, they will capture anything from goblins and trolls to harpies and fairies. If it's a monster of any sort, the Buckleby's are the one's to call. But, Bailey soon finds out that his father has been lying to him all of his life and it must be he who saves the people of the world. Monster Catcher is a fast-paced, action-packed adventure that will capture young hearts everywhere.
Character/ Story background and development -
I was generally surprised at how much development was within this little novel. Especially for it being book one in a series and a debut! Bailey's and his fathers development were some of the best. The two go from best buds to Bailey questioning everything about him to having to sacrifice him for the sake of the world. It just blew me away the relationship that the duo had as they were massively different, but brought very similar aspects to the relationship.
Plot -
George Brewington weaves lessons of friendship, morals, and action into this fantasy filled debut. Bailey's interest in monsters is heartwarming, especially when he finds out that monsters have feelings and all aren't bad like they are perceived to be.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I honestly didn't seem to find any spelling or grammatical errors that popped out or took away from the overall story. Monster Catchers is a very well-written novel.
Enjoyment -
I really enjoyed going on an adventure with Bailey and all the lovable monsters. I will most defiantly be rereading this. One thing I rather enjoyed, that I have to point out, is how George Brewington mixed extremely important world issues like: environmental issues, understanding differences, and sacrifices along with adding that fantasy aspect that is common among middle-grade novels.
Overall -
With the interwoven lessons and morals, the fun and quirky lines, the cliff hangers, discovering oneself, understanding differences, Monster Catchers encourages the reader to think beyond the words that are written.
Do I recommend? -
Yes! I highly recommend The Monster Catchers by George Brewington. It was such a cute little novel and I need more!!
"We either try or die, Bailey Boy."