Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Problem with Forever in Books
Dec 7, 2018
3.5
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Jennifer L. Armentrout is an American author best known for her young adult novel<i> Obsidian</i>. Although her previous books have contained fantasy elements, <i>The Problem With Forever</i> tackles a contemporary, realistic situation. It is a story of two teenage abuse survivors, and the ways they try to break free from their past.
Mallory has spent four years in therapy since being adopted/rescued by a couple of doctors, Carl and Rosa. Struggling with selective mutism as a result of her past, she has been unable to live a “normal” life. However, Mallory has ambitions to go to college, but in order to do this she must be able to cope being around and speaking to other people. So she takes what feels like the biggest step of her life and enrolls in high school for her senior year.
Of course high school was going to be a life changing experience for Mallory but she got even more than she bargained for. On her very first day she meets Rider, or rather is reunited; the boy she was in a foster home with. Neither believed they would ever see each other again and are delighted about being able to rekindle their strong friendship; except there are many obstacles in the way of their ‘happy ever after.’ A jealous girlfriend, over-protective parents, contrasting social circumstances, and, perhaps most importantly, the effects their challenging past has had on the pair.
The horror of Mallory and Rider’s past makes The Problem With Forever a heart-wrenching tale. It is shocking to think that children in real life have gone through, or are going through, similar experiences. Readers will want a happy ending for both characters, yet will undergo a foreboding sense that something will go wrong.
<i>The Problem With Forever</i> is also a love story – however this is where I think the novel falls down. The romance that blooms between Mallory and Rider seems to happen far too quickly, especially as they have only recently been reunited. That is not the only problem: Mallory and Rider grew up like foster siblings, which makes their new relationship feel somewhat wrong. The overall story could have been just as good without love coming into play.
Overall, I am sure readers will agree, Armentrout’s latest novel is a heart-wrenching story that comes with a strong message about letting go of the past and becoming someone new, someone better. You may have had a bad past, but you will have new experiences if you let yourself. You will not feel this way forever. Full of powerful statements, <i>The Problem With Forever</i> is likely to move many to tears – so be prepared!
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Jennifer L. Armentrout is an American author best known for her young adult novel<i> Obsidian</i>. Although her previous books have contained fantasy elements, <i>The Problem With Forever</i> tackles a contemporary, realistic situation. It is a story of two teenage abuse survivors, and the ways they try to break free from their past.
Mallory has spent four years in therapy since being adopted/rescued by a couple of doctors, Carl and Rosa. Struggling with selective mutism as a result of her past, she has been unable to live a “normal” life. However, Mallory has ambitions to go to college, but in order to do this she must be able to cope being around and speaking to other people. So she takes what feels like the biggest step of her life and enrolls in high school for her senior year.
Of course high school was going to be a life changing experience for Mallory but she got even more than she bargained for. On her very first day she meets Rider, or rather is reunited; the boy she was in a foster home with. Neither believed they would ever see each other again and are delighted about being able to rekindle their strong friendship; except there are many obstacles in the way of their ‘happy ever after.’ A jealous girlfriend, over-protective parents, contrasting social circumstances, and, perhaps most importantly, the effects their challenging past has had on the pair.
The horror of Mallory and Rider’s past makes The Problem With Forever a heart-wrenching tale. It is shocking to think that children in real life have gone through, or are going through, similar experiences. Readers will want a happy ending for both characters, yet will undergo a foreboding sense that something will go wrong.
<i>The Problem With Forever</i> is also a love story – however this is where I think the novel falls down. The romance that blooms between Mallory and Rider seems to happen far too quickly, especially as they have only recently been reunited. That is not the only problem: Mallory and Rider grew up like foster siblings, which makes their new relationship feel somewhat wrong. The overall story could have been just as good without love coming into play.
Overall, I am sure readers will agree, Armentrout’s latest novel is a heart-wrenching story that comes with a strong message about letting go of the past and becoming someone new, someone better. You may have had a bad past, but you will have new experiences if you let yourself. You will not feel this way forever. Full of powerful statements, <i>The Problem With Forever</i> is likely to move many to tears – so be prepared!
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us in Books
Jul 23, 2019
This book has one of the best forewords I've ever seen. Bornstein explains that since 1994, when the book was first published, language has changed a lot, and terms that were used regularly then, like transsexual, are highly offensive now. So she has heavily rewritten the book to change the language, but she goes on to say that language is an always-changing thing, and in five or six years this edition, too, might be offensive in the language used. Then she apologizes for that. My favorite lines are one of the last paragraphs of the foreword:
"Now, if anything you read in this book makes you feel bad or wrong or small and weak, then please know that I said something wrong. This book was written many years ago, and the culture I wrote it in is not the culture in which you're reading it. So, if you find anything to be personally insulting, please accept my apology and keep reading with the knowledge that your identity and how you express your gender are correct only when you feel they are correct."
It was a wonderful note to start the book on. I just loved "if you are offended, if this invalidates your identity, then I AM WRONG." Bornstein transitioned in the 80s, and has been an outspoken advocate of queer and trans people most of her life. She is definitely a figure in queer history that more people should read about.
The rest of the book is every bit as good as the foreword. Bornstein absolutely destroys the concept of gender in this book, dissecting it and looking at all the parts and pieces to attempt to figure out why society is so set on the binary system. She more than makes her case that gender is a spectrum, not an either/or. And not just a spectrum between "more male" and "more female" but a colorful kaleidoscope of gender expression and identity. She does not shy away from sensitive topics like surgeries and anatomy. She talks to the reader like she's your favorite outrageous aunt, sitting in the family room gossiping over heavily-spiked tea.
The formatting was occasionally confusing; she has the usual justified text, but then she has left-aligned passages (usually quotes from other people) and right-aligned passages (side-bar like content; I'm unclear if these are notes she made on the original text or what, but it generally clarifies or alters what the main text is talking about.)
I would HIGHLY recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn more about gender issues. Bornstein has an incredibly entertaining way of writing, and she loves to challenge what we think of as gender.
You can find all my reviews and more at http://goddessinthestacks.com
"Now, if anything you read in this book makes you feel bad or wrong or small and weak, then please know that I said something wrong. This book was written many years ago, and the culture I wrote it in is not the culture in which you're reading it. So, if you find anything to be personally insulting, please accept my apology and keep reading with the knowledge that your identity and how you express your gender are correct only when you feel they are correct."
It was a wonderful note to start the book on. I just loved "if you are offended, if this invalidates your identity, then I AM WRONG." Bornstein transitioned in the 80s, and has been an outspoken advocate of queer and trans people most of her life. She is definitely a figure in queer history that more people should read about.
The rest of the book is every bit as good as the foreword. Bornstein absolutely destroys the concept of gender in this book, dissecting it and looking at all the parts and pieces to attempt to figure out why society is so set on the binary system. She more than makes her case that gender is a spectrum, not an either/or. And not just a spectrum between "more male" and "more female" but a colorful kaleidoscope of gender expression and identity. She does not shy away from sensitive topics like surgeries and anatomy. She talks to the reader like she's your favorite outrageous aunt, sitting in the family room gossiping over heavily-spiked tea.
The formatting was occasionally confusing; she has the usual justified text, but then she has left-aligned passages (usually quotes from other people) and right-aligned passages (side-bar like content; I'm unclear if these are notes she made on the original text or what, but it generally clarifies or alters what the main text is talking about.)
I would HIGHLY recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn more about gender issues. Bornstein has an incredibly entertaining way of writing, and she loves to challenge what we think of as gender.
You can find all my reviews and more at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Salt (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Angelina Jolie, as Agent Evelyn Salt, plays the sexy spy role well, but the charm she displayed in Mr. and Mrs Smith isn’t present here at all. This is unfortunate because her emotional ties to the rest of the cast are integral to the plot. As seen in the trailers, Salt is a CIA agent who is accused by a defector of being a Russian spy. Salt is forced to run and uses her training and skills to evade capture while trying to prove her innocence.
Her years of experience as a covert operative are supposed to make viewers believe that this slight woman can take down ayone, but some of her fight scenes expected too much benefit of the doubt from the audience, and didn’t feel real. It wasn’t very convincing having such a thin woman carry on in a full fight scene with heavier built men. Despite harsh sound effects and fast camera edits, it honestly didn’t look like she was hitting the baddies hard enough to hurt, let alone knock them out.
Salt has some great twists and turns that kept me entertained and guessing, but that wasn’t enough to keep the whole movie afloat. Before long, these twists began to feel forced, and because I was snapped out of the movie several times after realizing how confused I was, it began to be aggravating to wait for the film to give the audience its bearings again. Phillip Noyce, who also directed the 1997 Val Kilmer spy film The Saint could have imbued the movie with subtle foreshadowing, or at least some foreshadowing as it was nonexistent.
Liev Schreiber, playing Salt’s trusted colleague, did a great job. His imposing yet friendly and sly demeanor fit his part very well. Chiwetel Ejiofor did a good job as well, but his role as another fellow agent was too small. It needed to be bigger for him to really shine. After watching him in Talk to Me, I believe him to be a headline star who needs more screen time to show what he’s capable of. In this smaller role, he does the job effectively, but left me wanting to see more of him.
The special effects were effective and not distracting except for one particular “walk away from the camera during an explosion” moment. It’s not that it was cliche, it’s that any explosion (at that distance, in that environment) would knock someone unconscious. There’s pushing the boundaries of realism for artistic effect, and then there’s that step that’s one step too far.
Overall, the film was enjoyable, but I had higher hopes for this movie. If you’re looking for action with twists, this movie has them in spades.
Her years of experience as a covert operative are supposed to make viewers believe that this slight woman can take down ayone, but some of her fight scenes expected too much benefit of the doubt from the audience, and didn’t feel real. It wasn’t very convincing having such a thin woman carry on in a full fight scene with heavier built men. Despite harsh sound effects and fast camera edits, it honestly didn’t look like she was hitting the baddies hard enough to hurt, let alone knock them out.
Salt has some great twists and turns that kept me entertained and guessing, but that wasn’t enough to keep the whole movie afloat. Before long, these twists began to feel forced, and because I was snapped out of the movie several times after realizing how confused I was, it began to be aggravating to wait for the film to give the audience its bearings again. Phillip Noyce, who also directed the 1997 Val Kilmer spy film The Saint could have imbued the movie with subtle foreshadowing, or at least some foreshadowing as it was nonexistent.
Liev Schreiber, playing Salt’s trusted colleague, did a great job. His imposing yet friendly and sly demeanor fit his part very well. Chiwetel Ejiofor did a good job as well, but his role as another fellow agent was too small. It needed to be bigger for him to really shine. After watching him in Talk to Me, I believe him to be a headline star who needs more screen time to show what he’s capable of. In this smaller role, he does the job effectively, but left me wanting to see more of him.
The special effects were effective and not distracting except for one particular “walk away from the camera during an explosion” moment. It’s not that it was cliche, it’s that any explosion (at that distance, in that environment) would knock someone unconscious. There’s pushing the boundaries of realism for artistic effect, and then there’s that step that’s one step too far.
Overall, the film was enjoyable, but I had higher hopes for this movie. If you’re looking for action with twists, this movie has them in spades.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated After Life in TV
Mar 3, 2020
As Ricky Gervais cheekily crow-barred in to his opening speech at the 2020 Golden Globes a few weeks ago, it is possible to watch all of After Life series one in less time than it takes to watch The Irishman. And that is exactly what I did; binged the whole thing on autoplay until it was done! Not to get it over with as soon as possible, but rather because it is hard to turn off – you just keep wanting more.
It’s not a complicated idea – Tony’s wife has died of cancer and he wishes he was dead too. Surrounded by tedious work colleagues in a dead end job, a father in a home with dementia, and having only a very hungry dog to lean on, he is filled with such bitterness and grief that he decides there is no point not doing anything he wants and being as nasty as possible to all around him.
The show glides effortlessly between hilarious situations, filled with sharp dialogue / small moments of comedy genius, and genuinely sad moments that leave a lump in the throat. It is a trick Gervais has been honing in all his shows since The Office, and now he has it down to a work of art you just have to applaud. No matter how ridiculous, it always seems rooted in truth and real emotion. Each vitriolic outburst is written so well we empathise with Tony almost every time, because he is usually right; and when he isn’t right, that moment of awkwardness is used with almost preternatural understanding of the audience to demonstrate the point of the whole conceit.
It boils down to the truth that no matter how much you want to give up on life and people, you can’t forget that happiness is a gift. Not just yours, but anyone’s. And to go around being an arsehole, wallowing in self-pity is entirely selfish, even if you have good reason to be that way. Distilled into less than 3 hours in total, After Life is no less than a magic trick, in not only achieving the passing on of that message, but in entertaining us every single minute in the meantime!
Thinking of how to rate it, I just can’t find much fault in what it sets out to be. It isn’t a grand or expensive production, it feels humble and economical, but oh so very focused. Do we want more bells and whistles? Have we come to expect that from our entertainment now. Is that what is missing? I feel I would recommend this show to anyone, and am very much looking forward to a second season in the Spring, but I also feel like it doesn’t need to have its trumpet over-blown; it’s just a lovely, funny, simple show about being alive.
It’s not a complicated idea – Tony’s wife has died of cancer and he wishes he was dead too. Surrounded by tedious work colleagues in a dead end job, a father in a home with dementia, and having only a very hungry dog to lean on, he is filled with such bitterness and grief that he decides there is no point not doing anything he wants and being as nasty as possible to all around him.
The show glides effortlessly between hilarious situations, filled with sharp dialogue / small moments of comedy genius, and genuinely sad moments that leave a lump in the throat. It is a trick Gervais has been honing in all his shows since The Office, and now he has it down to a work of art you just have to applaud. No matter how ridiculous, it always seems rooted in truth and real emotion. Each vitriolic outburst is written so well we empathise with Tony almost every time, because he is usually right; and when he isn’t right, that moment of awkwardness is used with almost preternatural understanding of the audience to demonstrate the point of the whole conceit.
It boils down to the truth that no matter how much you want to give up on life and people, you can’t forget that happiness is a gift. Not just yours, but anyone’s. And to go around being an arsehole, wallowing in self-pity is entirely selfish, even if you have good reason to be that way. Distilled into less than 3 hours in total, After Life is no less than a magic trick, in not only achieving the passing on of that message, but in entertaining us every single minute in the meantime!
Thinking of how to rate it, I just can’t find much fault in what it sets out to be. It isn’t a grand or expensive production, it feels humble and economical, but oh so very focused. Do we want more bells and whistles? Have we come to expect that from our entertainment now. Is that what is missing? I feel I would recommend this show to anyone, and am very much looking forward to a second season in the Spring, but I also feel like it doesn’t need to have its trumpet over-blown; it’s just a lovely, funny, simple show about being alive.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated I Still Believe (2020) in Movies
Apr 25, 2020 (Updated Apr 25, 2020)
rip my heart out why don't you
Contains spoilers, click to show
Hear me out. The thing about this film is that if you know anything about Jeremy Camp and his story, you know that Melissa dies. Spoiler alert - but I don't think that's news to anyone. I think what makes this film so good is that it's about a love story but it's almost four different love stories. It's about Melissa's blind, unwavering, awe-inspiring love for God. It's about Jeremy's renewal in that faith and in his belief and his love of God after Melissa dies. It's about Melissa and Jeremy's incredible love story - to walk through the fire together, until the end, to put it the way his dad does in the film. But it's also about God's love. And this is coming from a girl who is unsure about what to believe in the slightest. I'm not the preaching, church-going, praying person. I'm not even sure if there is a God, but I believe that people believe it and I respect them for it. Maybe I'll find it one day, maybe I won't. Regardless, this film is beautiful.
What annoys me about the critics that watched this film and their reviews is that they're almost surprised that she dies and that it's a Christian film. Like, do you know anything about Jeremy Camp and who he is? He's literally a Christian singer - for a living. I think this is one of those films where the audience is way more insightful than critics. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I feel like it's so easy for critics to critique and not just escape in the film. But I digress.
K.J. Apa and Britt Robinson are forces in this film. I think that they already have long, successful careers in front of them, without a doubt, but when they work together, they make some serious magic. This is their second film together and I could watch them in a million more. Shania Twain was a nice plug. I think sometimes when you put big country stars in films - Trace Adkins, Shania, etc. - it can be kind of overpowering (depending on the film), but she's very understated but memorable. The standout though, to me, other than the leads was Gary Sinise as Jeremy's dad. There's a moment towards the end of the film where he's just overcome and he leans against the wall and there's a picture of K.J. (meant to be Jeremy) under him and it just hits you. I feel like that was his strongest moment and one of the best moments of the film.
Overall, I think this film is really beautiful. I'm sure I'll come back to it a million times more. I definitely recommend watching it, just have tissues.
What annoys me about the critics that watched this film and their reviews is that they're almost surprised that she dies and that it's a Christian film. Like, do you know anything about Jeremy Camp and who he is? He's literally a Christian singer - for a living. I think this is one of those films where the audience is way more insightful than critics. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I feel like it's so easy for critics to critique and not just escape in the film. But I digress.
K.J. Apa and Britt Robinson are forces in this film. I think that they already have long, successful careers in front of them, without a doubt, but when they work together, they make some serious magic. This is their second film together and I could watch them in a million more. Shania Twain was a nice plug. I think sometimes when you put big country stars in films - Trace Adkins, Shania, etc. - it can be kind of overpowering (depending on the film), but she's very understated but memorable. The standout though, to me, other than the leads was Gary Sinise as Jeremy's dad. There's a moment towards the end of the film where he's just overcome and he leans against the wall and there's a picture of K.J. (meant to be Jeremy) under him and it just hits you. I feel like that was his strongest moment and one of the best moments of the film.
Overall, I think this film is really beautiful. I'm sure I'll come back to it a million times more. I definitely recommend watching it, just have tissues.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Fast and Furious Johnson/Statham Style
Fast And Furious Presents Hobbs & Shaw is a 2019 action movie directed by David Leitch and written by Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce from a story by Morgan. It was produced by Seven Bucks Productions and Chris Morgan Productions and distributed by Universal Pictures. The film also had Jason Statham, Dwayne Johnson, Chris Morgan and Hiram Garcia as producers. The movie stars Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Idris Elba, Vanessa Kirby and Ryan Reynolds.
When a team of MI6 agents try to retrieve a virus called "Snowflake", which could kill millions, from terrorist organization Eteon; Brixton Lore (Idris Elba), a cybernetically enhanced member of Eteon, arrives killing all the agents except Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby). She is able to inject herself with the virus and escape but Brixton forces her to go on the run by framing her as a traitor who killed her team and stole "Snowflake". Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) are both recruited by the CIA, to work together to track it down and recover it.
This movie definitely fit in with the Fast and Furious series and was what you expected from a spin-off of the main franchise. That being said, it also didn't feel like a good fit in a lot of ways. Dwayne Johnson's character Hobbs felt diminished in a way because of how they tried to humanize him and make him more relatable by introducing family like his daughter. Also Deckard Shaw, Statham's character was given the same treatment by introducing family characters as well. Since the Fast and Furious franchise is all about family, I guess this was to be expected but it came off as contrived and "trope-ish". Vanessa Kirby did an awesome job as kick ass Hattie Shaw and delivered a strong performance as did Idris Elba although his character felt like a stereo-typed villain. The stunts and action sequences of course were crazy as hell but if you like the Fast and Furious movies than you will like this film. For me though, I'm with most fans and feel that the team up with Shaw is a stab in the back to Han since he was killed by Shaw in the franchise. But I guess the movie makers didn't really care or maybe they'll do something else about it later and he'll wind up being alive. All in all, it's a decent movie but just didn't do it for me, even with the great action, the funny dialogue/banter between Statham and Johnson and solid performances from some of the actors. I give this movie a 6/10.
When a team of MI6 agents try to retrieve a virus called "Snowflake", which could kill millions, from terrorist organization Eteon; Brixton Lore (Idris Elba), a cybernetically enhanced member of Eteon, arrives killing all the agents except Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby). She is able to inject herself with the virus and escape but Brixton forces her to go on the run by framing her as a traitor who killed her team and stole "Snowflake". Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) are both recruited by the CIA, to work together to track it down and recover it.
This movie definitely fit in with the Fast and Furious series and was what you expected from a spin-off of the main franchise. That being said, it also didn't feel like a good fit in a lot of ways. Dwayne Johnson's character Hobbs felt diminished in a way because of how they tried to humanize him and make him more relatable by introducing family like his daughter. Also Deckard Shaw, Statham's character was given the same treatment by introducing family characters as well. Since the Fast and Furious franchise is all about family, I guess this was to be expected but it came off as contrived and "trope-ish". Vanessa Kirby did an awesome job as kick ass Hattie Shaw and delivered a strong performance as did Idris Elba although his character felt like a stereo-typed villain. The stunts and action sequences of course were crazy as hell but if you like the Fast and Furious movies than you will like this film. For me though, I'm with most fans and feel that the team up with Shaw is a stab in the back to Han since he was killed by Shaw in the franchise. But I guess the movie makers didn't really care or maybe they'll do something else about it later and he'll wind up being alive. All in all, it's a decent movie but just didn't do it for me, even with the great action, the funny dialogue/banter between Statham and Johnson and solid performances from some of the actors. I give this movie a 6/10.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Jan 6, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ah Psycho, the granddaddy of slashers and a film that I find somehow modern and dated at the same time.
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
New movies this year feel like both a treat and a torture, but Denzel? Gimme!
Deputy Joe Deacon is forced into confronting his past when he's sent to LA to collect some evidence. But his reluctant trip takes a turn as he gets involved in the investigation into a spate of murders. The obsession for a solution can sometimes be too much for even the most seasoned professional.
We open in 1990 in a situation that feels like it could be any time. The period doesn't feel like it holds any importance over the tale that's being told. It's almost a distraction as the opening feels like a flashback rather than just an introduction.
It has the look of a gritty crime drama/thriller. It's got the right tone, the right sort of actors, and definitely the right subject matter, but it somehow fails to engage on that level.
I love a Denzel performance, and he has this sort of genre deep in his back catalogue, it should be an easy win putting them together. It should. This one was disappointing. There doesn't seem to be much to Joe Deacon, lots gets revealed but it's never quite enough to see anything below the surface.
Rami Malek plays Jim Baker, the "new" Joe Deacon. I'm not a fan, of Malek or his character. I felt like Baker needed to be more charismatic and likeable, I found that particularly evident when I saw the press conference scene. I'm willing to admit that this is me saying the film should stick with the more traditional stereotypes of these roles, and they absolutely don't have to, but I found myself not being able to like/dislike him for the "right" reasons.
In the bad guy role we have Jared Leto, and he does creepy very well here. Out of our three main actors I would say that his performance is the best. With the other two I can see things that the characters are missing that would make an improvement (in my opinion), but here I think the thing that let him down was the films around him.
It's difficult to really point a finger at the exact issues I had with The Little Things, it may just be a combination of... the little things. (Sorry, I had to put it in somewhere.) There's character development, tense moments to make it more of a thriller, and in general, atmosphere... all missing... and while some parts of the ending were good, I don't think it gives a satisfying ending to make up for anything that came before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-little-things-movie-review.html
Deputy Joe Deacon is forced into confronting his past when he's sent to LA to collect some evidence. But his reluctant trip takes a turn as he gets involved in the investigation into a spate of murders. The obsession for a solution can sometimes be too much for even the most seasoned professional.
We open in 1990 in a situation that feels like it could be any time. The period doesn't feel like it holds any importance over the tale that's being told. It's almost a distraction as the opening feels like a flashback rather than just an introduction.
It has the look of a gritty crime drama/thriller. It's got the right tone, the right sort of actors, and definitely the right subject matter, but it somehow fails to engage on that level.
I love a Denzel performance, and he has this sort of genre deep in his back catalogue, it should be an easy win putting them together. It should. This one was disappointing. There doesn't seem to be much to Joe Deacon, lots gets revealed but it's never quite enough to see anything below the surface.
Rami Malek plays Jim Baker, the "new" Joe Deacon. I'm not a fan, of Malek or his character. I felt like Baker needed to be more charismatic and likeable, I found that particularly evident when I saw the press conference scene. I'm willing to admit that this is me saying the film should stick with the more traditional stereotypes of these roles, and they absolutely don't have to, but I found myself not being able to like/dislike him for the "right" reasons.
In the bad guy role we have Jared Leto, and he does creepy very well here. Out of our three main actors I would say that his performance is the best. With the other two I can see things that the characters are missing that would make an improvement (in my opinion), but here I think the thing that let him down was the films around him.
It's difficult to really point a finger at the exact issues I had with The Little Things, it may just be a combination of... the little things. (Sorry, I had to put it in somewhere.) There's character development, tense moments to make it more of a thriller, and in general, atmosphere... all missing... and while some parts of the ending were good, I don't think it gives a satisfying ending to make up for anything that came before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-little-things-movie-review.html
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 4, 2021
The Suicide Squad is a (possible) reboot that may or may not follow on from Suicide Squad and (or only) Birds of Prey. Honestly I'm not sure that even DC knows what's going on with their movie time line. Anyway, Margot Robbie and Joel Kinnamen return as Harley Quinn and Rick Flagg to lead another team of criminal misfits on an impossible mission (or, if it's a reboot like James Gunn says then it's the first time they are together and we ignore that Flagg askes Harley why she's back in prison or that Waller's team are checking who has worked with who). This time task force X are sent to the island of Corto Maltese to find and destroy 'Project Starfish'.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mom and Dad (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A teenage girl and her little brother must survive a wild 24 hours during which a mass hysteria of unknown origins causes parents to turn violently on their own kids.
This. Was. Hilarious. It's a zombie movie without being a zombie movie.
Surprisingly not listed as a comedy though, horror/action/thriller all the way... did these guys watch their own film? Luckily I was the only one in the screen because I was pissing myself laughing.
As much as I love Nicolas Cage, seeing him rage always makes me laugh. I feel like he would make a good Batman villain... for the TV show. The redeeming bit for me though was hearing him say "anal beads" in a moment where he flips out at his daughter's boyfriend.
I had some sympathy for Selma Blair's mum character, I wanted to kill her kid for most of the film too. Mum was a much more subtle murderous switch, whereas dad looked like he'd been having a meltdown for months. Mum seemed to struggle more with the idea of killing her kids, but when she went, boy was she a force to be reckoned with. Being a woman I can quite happily say that the look on her face, and the slow but meaningful grab of the tenderiser really does sum up how we feel for at least a minute portion of the month. Usually though in real life it would be us getting that look, taking a deep breath, and then smiling politely and going about our day... but in our heads... yep.
If you're not going to see this on your own then I'd advise you to go with friends. Not parents. As much as I love mine I was left wondering if the hysteria would make them want to drive across the country to try and kill me. I'm putting together a battle plan just in case. It is very much like my zombie apocalypse plan but less armour against biting.
The real question is whether the hysteria that was affecting the parents was entirely working on genetics or emotional connection... I'd have been interested to see the odd husband standing there with his kids, not affected while his wife goes full axe murderer and seeing him realise that his kids look more like the milkman/best friend than him. Conversely it would have been an awkward moment to admit that your kids were adopted... or would you attempt to kill them to hide the fact from them longer? Hmm... you know I say these things in jest though... it is only a film, don't get on my case about it.
This. Was. Hilarious. It's a zombie movie without being a zombie movie.
Surprisingly not listed as a comedy though, horror/action/thriller all the way... did these guys watch their own film? Luckily I was the only one in the screen because I was pissing myself laughing.
As much as I love Nicolas Cage, seeing him rage always makes me laugh. I feel like he would make a good Batman villain... for the TV show. The redeeming bit for me though was hearing him say "anal beads" in a moment where he flips out at his daughter's boyfriend.
I had some sympathy for Selma Blair's mum character, I wanted to kill her kid for most of the film too. Mum was a much more subtle murderous switch, whereas dad looked like he'd been having a meltdown for months. Mum seemed to struggle more with the idea of killing her kids, but when she went, boy was she a force to be reckoned with. Being a woman I can quite happily say that the look on her face, and the slow but meaningful grab of the tenderiser really does sum up how we feel for at least a minute portion of the month. Usually though in real life it would be us getting that look, taking a deep breath, and then smiling politely and going about our day... but in our heads... yep.
If you're not going to see this on your own then I'd advise you to go with friends. Not parents. As much as I love mine I was left wondering if the hysteria would make them want to drive across the country to try and kill me. I'm putting together a battle plan just in case. It is very much like my zombie apocalypse plan but less armour against biting.
The real question is whether the hysteria that was affecting the parents was entirely working on genetics or emotional connection... I'd have been interested to see the odd husband standing there with his kids, not affected while his wife goes full axe murderer and seeing him realise that his kids look more like the milkman/best friend than him. Conversely it would have been an awkward moment to admit that your kids were adopted... or would you attempt to kill them to hide the fact from them longer? Hmm... you know I say these things in jest though... it is only a film, don't get on my case about it.