Search
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Heartless ( Enemies to Lovers 1) in Books
Sep 11, 2023
125 of 235
Kindle
Heartless ( Enemies to Lovers 1)
By Michelle Heard
⭐️⭐️⭐️
I’m warned that Carter Hayes is heartless.
He’s part of the screw crew.
He’ll just use you and leave you.
He’s ruthless and always gets what he wants.
Just look for the trail of broken hearts and dreamy sighs, and you’ll find him.
“Hot as sin, Carter.”
I don’t have time to fall head over heels for any guy. Besides, he’d never notice someone like me. I have a three-step plan. Get through college. Get a job. Get my sister out of the hell hole I left her in. That’s all I have time for.
That’s until I hear of the betting pool the guys started. Whoever screws me first gets the money. The moment Carter looks at me, I know it’s only because of the bet.
I tell myself our first kiss is only for show.
I hate my heart for falling for his irresistible charm.
For one foolish moment, I actually want him to be my first earth-shattering love. All it takes for me to give in is a little attention, a cocky smile, and a fake promise of a happily-ever-after.
When I’m surrounded by crumpled sheets and the smell of sex, I realize I let him have me for four hundred dollars.
To save what little pride I have left, I pretend it didn’t mean anything, that he’s just one last screw before we all leave college.
I’ve spent the last four years lying to myself. When I’m ready to take the final step of my plan, and save my sister, guess who walks through my front door?
I actually ended up liking this! The first couple of chapters I thought were a bit ropey the “ Screw Crew” and yes that’s what they called the women they slept with was a bit ridiculous but then again these were boys! But as it developed I actually thought it was a good quick read. It was a sweet ending too I’m not much one for romance.
Kindle
Heartless ( Enemies to Lovers 1)
By Michelle Heard
⭐️⭐️⭐️
I’m warned that Carter Hayes is heartless.
He’s part of the screw crew.
He’ll just use you and leave you.
He’s ruthless and always gets what he wants.
Just look for the trail of broken hearts and dreamy sighs, and you’ll find him.
“Hot as sin, Carter.”
I don’t have time to fall head over heels for any guy. Besides, he’d never notice someone like me. I have a three-step plan. Get through college. Get a job. Get my sister out of the hell hole I left her in. That’s all I have time for.
That’s until I hear of the betting pool the guys started. Whoever screws me first gets the money. The moment Carter looks at me, I know it’s only because of the bet.
I tell myself our first kiss is only for show.
I hate my heart for falling for his irresistible charm.
For one foolish moment, I actually want him to be my first earth-shattering love. All it takes for me to give in is a little attention, a cocky smile, and a fake promise of a happily-ever-after.
When I’m surrounded by crumpled sheets and the smell of sex, I realize I let him have me for four hundred dollars.
To save what little pride I have left, I pretend it didn’t mean anything, that he’s just one last screw before we all leave college.
I’ve spent the last four years lying to myself. When I’m ready to take the final step of my plan, and save my sister, guess who walks through my front door?
I actually ended up liking this! The first couple of chapters I thought were a bit ropey the “ Screw Crew” and yes that’s what they called the women they slept with was a bit ridiculous but then again these were boys! But as it developed I actually thought it was a good quick read. It was a sweet ending too I’m not much one for romance.
The Lucky Few: Finding God's Best in the Most Unlikely Places
Heather Avis and Lysa TerKeurst
Book
These are the faces that call me "mom," the three children who made me a mother. When I started my...
Argo: How the CIA and Hollywood Pulled Off the Most Audacious Rescue in History
Matt Baglio and Antonio Mendez
Book
Argo by Antonio Mendez and Matt Baglio - the declassified CIA story behind the Oscar-winning film...
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Ghost Boy in Books
Jun 24, 2019
Another young adult novel, following an 11-year-old boy. His name is Ben, and he sees ghosts. Well, spirits, and only a few. Mainly, he sees Abby, a girl of his own age. His mother views his ability as a 'gift', but his father thinks he's crazy. He gets angry when Ben talks about Abby as if she's real, and tries several methods to rid Ben of his spirits.
Ben goes through a lot in this novel, from his cousin losing his foot, his father sending him to a shrink, being caught graffiti-ing, and being beaten up for standing up to a bully. And more! These things are mostly nothing to do with Abby or Ben's ability to see the dead, but there are some connections. In one case, Ben actually exorcises a 'dybbuk' from a stranger on a beach.
It is clear that Ben is desperate for his father's approval. He attempts daring and foolish stunts designed to impress him, and he ends up lying about taking anti-psychotic medication just to please him. His mother often stands up for Ben, but this causes h er to fight with his father. Ben's sister is rarely mentioned, and does not seem to make any comments on Ben's ability - if she even knows about it.
A lot of this book felt like it was completely disconnected to the main plot; it felt a bit like a generic YA fiction novel at times. The plot revolving around Abby seemed to disappear for a while, before being re-introduced.
The plot with Abby was actually very interesting. I had my hunches from relatively early on, but it wasn't overly obvious or predictable. I did find it a bit strange how Ben believed he had a romantic interest in her at one point, and the 'solution' she suggests is also a bit strange... But it was unique and innovative, that's for sure. I'm intrigued to know where Abby got her name from, as it is later revealed that her mother referred to her as Eliza.
Ben's exorcising ability was not explained or developed upon at all, and there was no other mention of/reference to dybbuks or similar demons. This was a bit of a shame, as that was an interesting aspect.
As Ben was quite a young protagonist, I do believe I am a bit too old to actually really appreciate this. The writing definitely seemed more suited to a slightly younger audience, but wasn't overly immature. I'd definitely recommend this for slightly younger readers. I noticed a few mistakes, but only generic typos. 3.5 stars.
Ben goes through a lot in this novel, from his cousin losing his foot, his father sending him to a shrink, being caught graffiti-ing, and being beaten up for standing up to a bully. And more! These things are mostly nothing to do with Abby or Ben's ability to see the dead, but there are some connections. In one case, Ben actually exorcises a 'dybbuk' from a stranger on a beach.
It is clear that Ben is desperate for his father's approval. He attempts daring and foolish stunts designed to impress him, and he ends up lying about taking anti-psychotic medication just to please him. His mother often stands up for Ben, but this causes h er to fight with his father. Ben's sister is rarely mentioned, and does not seem to make any comments on Ben's ability - if she even knows about it.
A lot of this book felt like it was completely disconnected to the main plot; it felt a bit like a generic YA fiction novel at times. The plot revolving around Abby seemed to disappear for a while, before being re-introduced.
The plot with Abby was actually very interesting. I had my hunches from relatively early on, but it wasn't overly obvious or predictable. I did find it a bit strange how Ben believed he had a romantic interest in her at one point, and the 'solution' she suggests is also a bit strange... But it was unique and innovative, that's for sure. I'm intrigued to know where Abby got her name from, as it is later revealed that her mother referred to her as Eliza.
Ben's exorcising ability was not explained or developed upon at all, and there was no other mention of/reference to dybbuks or similar demons. This was a bit of a shame, as that was an interesting aspect.
As Ben was quite a young protagonist, I do believe I am a bit too old to actually really appreciate this. The writing definitely seemed more suited to a slightly younger audience, but wasn't overly immature. I'd definitely recommend this for slightly younger readers. I noticed a few mistakes, but only generic typos. 3.5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Haunted Mansion (2003) in Movies
Jul 28, 2023
Welcome Foolish Mortals to the latest adaptation of the popular Disney attraction as Haunted Mansion has materialized for audiences to enjoy.
This time around the film follows a single mother named Gabbie (RosarioDawson), and her son Travis (Chase W. Dillon).
The family has moved into an abandoned mansion near New Orleans as they look to start over but find that their new abode is haunted.
Despite their best efforts to flee, the ghosts force them to return to the
mansion and they seek help in the form of a Priest named Father Kent (Owen Wilson), and Ben Matthias (LaKeith Stanfield) who has been reduced to doing Ghost Tours following a personal tragedy that saw his lofty skills and career vanish in the aftermath.
When the help finds themselves able to leave the mansion without an
otherworldly escort, they bring in a Medium named Harriet (Tiffany
Haddish) and in time the mysterious Madame Leota (Jamie Lee Curtis).
It is learned that a dangerous ghost is striking fear into the other 999
haunts that inhabit the locale and should he collect his 1000th soul, he
will unleash a new level of terror on the world.
Things become even more complicated with a local professor named Bruce (Danny DeVito) arrives and creates a new Wild Card to the situation.
The movie does a great job of capturing the look and tone of the
attraction as one of the great joys was seeing things ranging from the
pictures to stretching room and other factors big and small from the
attraction portrayed on the big screen.
The cast is great and works well with one another but the movie does take
some time getting ramped up and I did find it dragging in various places.
The audience laughed frequently but for me many of the jokes did not work which I attributed to the focus being on a a younger audience as I found them more amusing than funny.
The FX in the film are solid and Jared Leto’s character is so well done
you cannot recognize him as he has disappeared so deeply into the
character aided by some great visual work.
As a big fan of the attraction it was nice to see a much better take on
the source material than previous efforts.
In the end despite the flaws, there is enough happy nostalgia to keep fans
entertained and hopefully the audience will want to visit the mansion enough that a new franchise is on the way.
3 stars out of 5
This time around the film follows a single mother named Gabbie (RosarioDawson), and her son Travis (Chase W. Dillon).
The family has moved into an abandoned mansion near New Orleans as they look to start over but find that their new abode is haunted.
Despite their best efforts to flee, the ghosts force them to return to the
mansion and they seek help in the form of a Priest named Father Kent (Owen Wilson), and Ben Matthias (LaKeith Stanfield) who has been reduced to doing Ghost Tours following a personal tragedy that saw his lofty skills and career vanish in the aftermath.
When the help finds themselves able to leave the mansion without an
otherworldly escort, they bring in a Medium named Harriet (Tiffany
Haddish) and in time the mysterious Madame Leota (Jamie Lee Curtis).
It is learned that a dangerous ghost is striking fear into the other 999
haunts that inhabit the locale and should he collect his 1000th soul, he
will unleash a new level of terror on the world.
Things become even more complicated with a local professor named Bruce (Danny DeVito) arrives and creates a new Wild Card to the situation.
The movie does a great job of capturing the look and tone of the
attraction as one of the great joys was seeing things ranging from the
pictures to stretching room and other factors big and small from the
attraction portrayed on the big screen.
The cast is great and works well with one another but the movie does take
some time getting ramped up and I did find it dragging in various places.
The audience laughed frequently but for me many of the jokes did not work which I attributed to the focus being on a a younger audience as I found them more amusing than funny.
The FX in the film are solid and Jared Leto’s character is so well done
you cannot recognize him as he has disappeared so deeply into the
character aided by some great visual work.
As a big fan of the attraction it was nice to see a much better take on
the source material than previous efforts.
In the end despite the flaws, there is enough happy nostalgia to keep fans
entertained and hopefully the audience will want to visit the mansion enough that a new franchise is on the way.
3 stars out of 5
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Lost Angel in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book had almost too much going on, with an extensive glossary in the beginning pages - complete with color photos - that I needed to read beforehand to keep up with the plot. Javier Sierra made a point of mixing fact with fiction in this novel, and the book reads like an extensive 'conspiracy theory.' My husband is much more familiar with many aspects of the plot, and I often asked him if what I was reading about was really true or not. The book opens with a quotation of Genesis 6: 2-3, which states "...the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.'" This is followed by a quote from John Dee, who figures prominently in the plot, though I did not find the quote to be especially inspiring.
The main focus of the book is about a group of people who consider themselves descendants of those angels that joined with "the daughters of man," and want to find a way to get back into heaven. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this -- murder, deceit, even putting the whole planet in jeopardy.
The main character, Julia Alvarez, is a psychic who is completely duped by their antics. I understand that the author means for the reader to feel sympathy for the angelic descendants through Julia's narration, but the way that Julia allows herself to be used and deceived by even her own husband disgusts me. She believes whatever they tell her and does not question anything. In fact, anyone that does question this main family is characterized as foolish and forgettable, such as Ellen Watson and Inspector Figueiras.
There was one main problem I had with the plot, which is that in the Bible, the angels that mate with human women are 'fallen' because they disobeyed God, which is never addressed. What is also never addressed is any scriptural substantiation for what they believed about Noah and the ark. They believed they could force God to take them back into heaven with their thrown-together mish-mash of technology. How is that believable? God kicked the angels out - they certainly can't force their way back in! Not to mention, this family does not back up their belief that they are descendants of angels with actual scientific proof, such as DNA tests, even though they all claim to be men (and woman) of science.
Overall, the book twists a blasphemous tale of Biblical scripture, using factual information to support a fictitious plot. It has suspense, intrigue, and even a bit of romance, but the end is neither believable nor enjoyable. While books of this nature became popular thanks to the works of Dan Brown, (yes, I've read his stuff, too), I found this book to be merely an okay read.
The main focus of the book is about a group of people who consider themselves descendants of those angels that joined with "the daughters of man," and want to find a way to get back into heaven. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this -- murder, deceit, even putting the whole planet in jeopardy.
The main character, Julia Alvarez, is a psychic who is completely duped by their antics. I understand that the author means for the reader to feel sympathy for the angelic descendants through Julia's narration, but the way that Julia allows herself to be used and deceived by even her own husband disgusts me. She believes whatever they tell her and does not question anything. In fact, anyone that does question this main family is characterized as foolish and forgettable, such as Ellen Watson and Inspector Figueiras.
There was one main problem I had with the plot, which is that in the Bible, the angels that mate with human women are 'fallen' because they disobeyed God, which is never addressed. What is also never addressed is any scriptural substantiation for what they believed about Noah and the ark. They believed they could force God to take them back into heaven with their thrown-together mish-mash of technology. How is that believable? God kicked the angels out - they certainly can't force their way back in! Not to mention, this family does not back up their belief that they are descendants of angels with actual scientific proof, such as DNA tests, even though they all claim to be men (and woman) of science.
Overall, the book twists a blasphemous tale of Biblical scripture, using factual information to support a fictitious plot. It has suspense, intrigue, and even a bit of romance, but the end is neither believable nor enjoyable. While books of this nature became popular thanks to the works of Dan Brown, (yes, I've read his stuff, too), I found this book to be merely an okay read.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Apr 28, 2018 (Updated Apr 30, 2018)
Great Action (as always) (3 more)
Incredible visuals
Brilliant cast
A f*ck fest of emotions
Not as impactful (2 more)
Another film that seems to happen too fast
A f*ck fest of emotions
10 years in the making
Contains spoilers, click to show
As stated this review contains spoilers so leave now lest ye want to ruin the film!
So this films has been everything marvel has been building towards for the past decade and that in itself is truly incredible and whilst I am not as big a Marvel fan as I am DC, I can honestly say I have loved every step of the way. The films only got better with each wave of the universe and there have been some true masterpieces, Superior to the DC cinematic universe for it's continuity and it's structure, I am not afraid to admit that or foolish enough to deny that.
However at the time of writing this I have literally just come out of the screening of Avengers: Infinity War and I have to say I was impressed but also slightly disappointed. Here's why...
I was impressed with the performances, and everything that has connected the Marvel cinematic universe up to this point and the cast portray that history incredibly well. You can really tell that these characters have had all this history and even the newer cast like Black Panther, fit well into that history and the overall atmosphere of the universe.
Brolin was incredible as Thanos and the writers did something unexpected with his character that really makes the audience think about his intentions.
However, the overall impact of the film was a little lost on me and possibly me alone, for the simple reason that it all happens so fast. There's a lot of action, a lot of laughs and a lot of serious impact moments, but without spoiling names, the loss of characters in this film didn't impact me as much as I'd hoped.
But here's why that might just be me, and it really comes down to 3 words:
Comic Book Movie
No matter how hard I try, I can't escape that when I watch these films. They are comic book movies and we already know a lot of these characters have more movies to go. So I know that no matter what will happen, it will all work out one way or another in the end you'll lose some characters but will they really be gone gone, or will we see them in another film, or at least hear about them in another film.
It's not because I'm a DC fanboy or anything cos honestly I know I'd feel this way about any comic book movie. It's just not something I can seem to grasp when it comes to my feelings towards comic book movies. The whole "they made comic characters feel real and live in our reality" I get to a certain extent but that doesn't mean I'll walk out of a movie in tears over the death of even my favourite comic book character if it were to happen. Some films have that impact on me, I'm not a robot, but comic book films just don't seem to work for me when it comes to that true emotions of loss. But as I said that's just me. I was hoping infinity war would change that cos I knew this was a biggy, but sadly it didn't quite happen. It came close with certain scenes. But not quite.
So overall I give it 9/10 because it was a brilliant film. Without a doubt ONE OF the best comic movies, not the best, but certainly one of.
So this films has been everything marvel has been building towards for the past decade and that in itself is truly incredible and whilst I am not as big a Marvel fan as I am DC, I can honestly say I have loved every step of the way. The films only got better with each wave of the universe and there have been some true masterpieces, Superior to the DC cinematic universe for it's continuity and it's structure, I am not afraid to admit that or foolish enough to deny that.
However at the time of writing this I have literally just come out of the screening of Avengers: Infinity War and I have to say I was impressed but also slightly disappointed. Here's why...
I was impressed with the performances, and everything that has connected the Marvel cinematic universe up to this point and the cast portray that history incredibly well. You can really tell that these characters have had all this history and even the newer cast like Black Panther, fit well into that history and the overall atmosphere of the universe.
Brolin was incredible as Thanos and the writers did something unexpected with his character that really makes the audience think about his intentions.
However, the overall impact of the film was a little lost on me and possibly me alone, for the simple reason that it all happens so fast. There's a lot of action, a lot of laughs and a lot of serious impact moments, but without spoiling names, the loss of characters in this film didn't impact me as much as I'd hoped.
But here's why that might just be me, and it really comes down to 3 words:
Comic Book Movie
No matter how hard I try, I can't escape that when I watch these films. They are comic book movies and we already know a lot of these characters have more movies to go. So I know that no matter what will happen, it will all work out one way or another in the end you'll lose some characters but will they really be gone gone, or will we see them in another film, or at least hear about them in another film.
It's not because I'm a DC fanboy or anything cos honestly I know I'd feel this way about any comic book movie. It's just not something I can seem to grasp when it comes to my feelings towards comic book movies. The whole "they made comic characters feel real and live in our reality" I get to a certain extent but that doesn't mean I'll walk out of a movie in tears over the death of even my favourite comic book character if it were to happen. Some films have that impact on me, I'm not a robot, but comic book films just don't seem to work for me when it comes to that true emotions of loss. But as I said that's just me. I was hoping infinity war would change that cos I knew this was a biggy, but sadly it didn't quite happen. It came close with certain scenes. But not quite.
So overall I give it 9/10 because it was a brilliant film. Without a doubt ONE OF the best comic movies, not the best, but certainly one of.
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.
Mothergamer (1521 KP) rated Birth of the Dragon (2016) in Movies
Apr 3, 2019
At first I was curious about the movie that was meant to be about Bruce Lee titled Birth of the Dragon. I love Bruce Lee. I grew up watching his movies, I watched episodes of The Green Hornet, and I voraciously read everything I could about him. One of my titos (that's Tagalog for uncle) told me about how he met Bruce Lee before and how kind he was. I am Filipino and white so I grew up with both these cultures and I'm grateful for it. My family has all kinds of people from all over and all walks of life and I love them dearly. When I would visit my Filipino family I loved that we would often gather round together on the couch with popcorn and snacks and watch Bruce Lee movies. This was special and it's one of my favorite memories from my childhood. I would watch Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid and I would be excited when they would feature a Bruce Lee movie. My grandparents weren't really into it, but they would watch with me and my brother Rob sometimes.
I will always love Bruce Lee and his movies. He was an incredible person and so talented. Watching his movies was a huge part of my childhood and when I see that there's a Bruce Lee movie on, I always watch it.
I didn't know anything about Birth of the Dragon. There was a trailer that looked interesting. Then I kept hearing negative things about the film such as it's racist towards Asians and they made Bruce Lee the secondary character yet claimed it was a biopic about him. Then I read this: http://www.asamnews.com/2016/09/29/birth-of-the-dragon-biopic-enrages-bruce-lee-fans-buries-asians-in-favor-of-a-white-guy/
Birth of the Dragon is disappointing to me for this. It IS insulting to Asians and if we're really being brutally honest, it IS insulting not only to Bruce Lee, but to his family and friends who loved him. I don't understand making the white guy the main character when this was shopped as a Bruce Lee biopic. On top of this, it seems they made Bruce Lee appear to be this very one sided character who was just arrogant and stupid and it's simply not true. While Lee himself owned up to being foolish when he was younger, he was never stupid. Bruce Lee thought about each and every thing he did and in his movies there was always a political theme and the ideas expressed were intricate and well thought out. They provoked ideas and discussions as well as entertained. Read any of his books on martial arts and you see a deep philosophy and calm practicality to his teachings that show someone who was an incredibly thoughtful person.
The Filipino kid in me is extremely disappointed by this and a little angry too because Bruce Lee is one of my heroes and I'm disgusted by what appears to be blatantly anti-Asian propaganda in a film that was being sold as a biopic about him. This is irresponsible and Asian people have every right to be angry about this because once again Hollywood is shoving us into the background and telling us we're not as important because we're not white. I loved Bruce Lee because he was amazing and I loved that there was an Asian person who was the main character in his movies; someone like me and my brothers and my sister. That meant something to me and it still does. The people who made this movie should apologize for the horrible lie they told about this being a biopic about Bruce Lee and at least be honest about what it really is a film stating that white people are better than us. We'll never get that apology of course because these are the kinds of people who run Hollywood and have for years. I do know that I for one will not see this film and I will watch Bruce Lee's movies and celebrate the amazing person he was.
I will always love Bruce Lee and his movies. He was an incredible person and so talented. Watching his movies was a huge part of my childhood and when I see that there's a Bruce Lee movie on, I always watch it.
I didn't know anything about Birth of the Dragon. There was a trailer that looked interesting. Then I kept hearing negative things about the film such as it's racist towards Asians and they made Bruce Lee the secondary character yet claimed it was a biopic about him. Then I read this: http://www.asamnews.com/2016/09/29/birth-of-the-dragon-biopic-enrages-bruce-lee-fans-buries-asians-in-favor-of-a-white-guy/
Birth of the Dragon is disappointing to me for this. It IS insulting to Asians and if we're really being brutally honest, it IS insulting not only to Bruce Lee, but to his family and friends who loved him. I don't understand making the white guy the main character when this was shopped as a Bruce Lee biopic. On top of this, it seems they made Bruce Lee appear to be this very one sided character who was just arrogant and stupid and it's simply not true. While Lee himself owned up to being foolish when he was younger, he was never stupid. Bruce Lee thought about each and every thing he did and in his movies there was always a political theme and the ideas expressed were intricate and well thought out. They provoked ideas and discussions as well as entertained. Read any of his books on martial arts and you see a deep philosophy and calm practicality to his teachings that show someone who was an incredibly thoughtful person.
The Filipino kid in me is extremely disappointed by this and a little angry too because Bruce Lee is one of my heroes and I'm disgusted by what appears to be blatantly anti-Asian propaganda in a film that was being sold as a biopic about him. This is irresponsible and Asian people have every right to be angry about this because once again Hollywood is shoving us into the background and telling us we're not as important because we're not white. I loved Bruce Lee because he was amazing and I loved that there was an Asian person who was the main character in his movies; someone like me and my brothers and my sister. That meant something to me and it still does. The people who made this movie should apologize for the horrible lie they told about this being a biopic about Bruce Lee and at least be honest about what it really is a film stating that white people are better than us. We'll never get that apology of course because these are the kinds of people who run Hollywood and have for years. I do know that I for one will not see this film and I will watch Bruce Lee's movies and celebrate the amazing person he was.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).