Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Bear faced brilliance.
I never went to see “Paddington 2” at the cinema when it came out. Well, it’s a kids film isn’t it? And my grandkids I thought… well, their probably a bit too young for the long haul on this one. But – after catching up with it recently on a transatlantic flight – I’m sorry I missed it. For it is brilliant in its own way.
Having not seen the first “Paddington”, also directed by Paul King, there is a useful little flashback to the Peruvian origins of the little chap before we pitch into the plot proper. Paddington (voiced by Ben Wishaw, “Spectre“) has nicely settled down to life with The Brown’s in their London home and is a well-loved member of the community (well, well loved that is by everyone except the cranky Mr Curry (Peter Capaldi, “Dr Who“, “World War Z“). But he longs to buy his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton, “Finding Your Feet“) a special birthday present – a pop-up book of London scenes that he’s seen in a local antique shop. But for that he needs a lot of cash, and so proceeds to earn it through a variety of different jobs.
However, fading actor Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) also shows an unhealty interest in the book and, after it disappears from the shop with Paddington’s paw prints all over the scene, the poor bear finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
This is a continually inventive movie, which rockets along with truly impressive verve and panache from scene to scene. As a particular example of this, an animated walk through the pop-up book is marvellously done: a tribute to the 2D retro nature (even in those days!) of the TV animation of the 70’s that will go over the heads of younger viewers. There are plenty of slapstick scenes – notably of Paddington trying window cleaning, and his job in a barber’s shop – which will not only delight younger children but also made this 57 year old laugh out loud too! The prison sequence also delights, with a laundry blunder by the bear leading into a comical showdown with the prison’s chief poisoner, sorry, head chef played by Brendan Gleeson (“Alone in Berlin“, “Live By Night“).
Vision AND sound! Paddington with incarcerated friends, including Brendan Gleeson (centre).
The cast all seem to revel in their parts, with Hugh Bonneville (“Viceroy’s House“, “The Monuments Men“) energetic as Mr Brown and Oscar runner-up (surely!) Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water“) very chirpy as Mrs Brown. All of the residents of Windsor Gardens are a who’s who of UK film and TV, and each cameo has a lovely little tale behind it: Julie Walters (“Brooklyn“) as Mrs Bird, the Brown’s help; Sanjeev Bhaskar as Dr Jafri, forever nearly locking himself out; Miss Kitts (Jessica Hynes) and the crusty Colonel Lancaster (Ben Miller) in a ‘will they/won’t they’ potential romance. Elsewhere, Jim Broadbent (“Bridget Jones Baby“, “Eddie the Eagle“) is great as the antique store owner; Tom Conti adds both gravitas and humour as Judge Biggleswade and Richard Ayoade (“The Double“) is very funny as a forensic expert.
The Brown family: from left; Mr Brown (Hugh Bonneville); Jonathan (Samuel Joslin); Mrs Brown (Sally Hawkins); Mrs Bird (Julie Walters); and Judy Brown (Madeleine Harris).
Head and shoulders above all of them though is Hugh Grant who is just outstandingly good as the puffed-up and self-important ham-actor. His Best Supporting Actor nomination for a BAFTA was surprising, but having seen the film so very much deserved. Hang around in the end credits for his last words of the film which are cornily hilarious! One can only hope that Phoenix Buchanen returns for Paddington 3.
A career best… Hugh Grant as the devilishly slippery Phoenix Buchanan.
I would have thought that some of the scenes towards the end of the film, particularly one where Paddington seems doomed to a watery end, might be a little frightening for younger viewers. Thank heavens Sally Hawkins has gills! 🙂
Overall, this is a movie I would gladly watch again, with or without kids. In a movie landscape that is pretty devoid of good comedy, here is a movie that really did make me laugh out loud.
Having not seen the first “Paddington”, also directed by Paul King, there is a useful little flashback to the Peruvian origins of the little chap before we pitch into the plot proper. Paddington (voiced by Ben Wishaw, “Spectre“) has nicely settled down to life with The Brown’s in their London home and is a well-loved member of the community (well, well loved that is by everyone except the cranky Mr Curry (Peter Capaldi, “Dr Who“, “World War Z“). But he longs to buy his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton, “Finding Your Feet“) a special birthday present – a pop-up book of London scenes that he’s seen in a local antique shop. But for that he needs a lot of cash, and so proceeds to earn it through a variety of different jobs.
However, fading actor Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) also shows an unhealty interest in the book and, after it disappears from the shop with Paddington’s paw prints all over the scene, the poor bear finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
This is a continually inventive movie, which rockets along with truly impressive verve and panache from scene to scene. As a particular example of this, an animated walk through the pop-up book is marvellously done: a tribute to the 2D retro nature (even in those days!) of the TV animation of the 70’s that will go over the heads of younger viewers. There are plenty of slapstick scenes – notably of Paddington trying window cleaning, and his job in a barber’s shop – which will not only delight younger children but also made this 57 year old laugh out loud too! The prison sequence also delights, with a laundry blunder by the bear leading into a comical showdown with the prison’s chief poisoner, sorry, head chef played by Brendan Gleeson (“Alone in Berlin“, “Live By Night“).
Vision AND sound! Paddington with incarcerated friends, including Brendan Gleeson (centre).
The cast all seem to revel in their parts, with Hugh Bonneville (“Viceroy’s House“, “The Monuments Men“) energetic as Mr Brown and Oscar runner-up (surely!) Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water“) very chirpy as Mrs Brown. All of the residents of Windsor Gardens are a who’s who of UK film and TV, and each cameo has a lovely little tale behind it: Julie Walters (“Brooklyn“) as Mrs Bird, the Brown’s help; Sanjeev Bhaskar as Dr Jafri, forever nearly locking himself out; Miss Kitts (Jessica Hynes) and the crusty Colonel Lancaster (Ben Miller) in a ‘will they/won’t they’ potential romance. Elsewhere, Jim Broadbent (“Bridget Jones Baby“, “Eddie the Eagle“) is great as the antique store owner; Tom Conti adds both gravitas and humour as Judge Biggleswade and Richard Ayoade (“The Double“) is very funny as a forensic expert.
The Brown family: from left; Mr Brown (Hugh Bonneville); Jonathan (Samuel Joslin); Mrs Brown (Sally Hawkins); Mrs Bird (Julie Walters); and Judy Brown (Madeleine Harris).
Head and shoulders above all of them though is Hugh Grant who is just outstandingly good as the puffed-up and self-important ham-actor. His Best Supporting Actor nomination for a BAFTA was surprising, but having seen the film so very much deserved. Hang around in the end credits for his last words of the film which are cornily hilarious! One can only hope that Phoenix Buchanen returns for Paddington 3.
A career best… Hugh Grant as the devilishly slippery Phoenix Buchanan.
I would have thought that some of the scenes towards the end of the film, particularly one where Paddington seems doomed to a watery end, might be a little frightening for younger viewers. Thank heavens Sally Hawkins has gills! 🙂
Overall, this is a movie I would gladly watch again, with or without kids. In a movie landscape that is pretty devoid of good comedy, here is a movie that really did make me laugh out loud.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Wolf Next Door (Westfield Wolves, #3) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
The Wolf Next Door by Lydia Dare
Genre: Paranormal werewolf romance, historical fiction
ISBN:9781402236969
Published: June 1st 2010 by Sourcebooks Casablanca
Rating:
Years ago, William Westfield and Pricia Hawthorne were in love—but Pricia's heart was broken and she refuses to let the scoundrel forget it. She knows now that he never committed the accused crime… but she can't bare to give her heart to him again. Even though she wants to.
Will has established his reputation as the best lover in six centuries. And he knows he did it to get Pricia out of his head. He still loves and adores her, snotty remarks and spirited personality and rule-breaking attitude and all. But when he is forced to visit the Hawthorne house to escort his sisters-in-law, he discovers that another man—another Lycan man—is pursuing her hand in marriage. Will doesn't think: The games are over. He decides that he will do anything and everything to keep the other werewolf away, and claim her forever.
This was, out of the three Westfield stories, my favorite. From the time I started reading, I couldn't put it down. It was fast-paced, exciting, and romantic. Although can I say that the covers—for this one and the others—could have been better? Still, I loved the story.
Will has always been my favorite Westfield, because of his happy, funny, warm, laid-back personality… and I loved seeing him desperately in love, trying his hardest to charm Pricia's socks off. Pricia is my favorite kind of heroine: the kind that can hold her own, especially with five brothers. Put Will and Pricia together, and you have an epic couple: They love each other, they hate each other. But they only hate each other because they love each other… a never-ending circle, a never-ending conversation, and a never-ending story… but a very satisfying ending to the book.
The plot was a lot more exciting than Dare's other werewolf stories—not to say the others aren't exciting. But this one surpassed the others. The other Lycan threatening Will's happiness added a good conflict to the story. Pricia's execution of torture on poor Will was both pitiful and hilarious. There was a war going on between the two wolves, and a war going on between the lovers, and it made for a stay-up-until-3-AM kind of book.
One of the reasons this one was probably my favorite, was because it wasn't sappy. I'm not saying the others are: but there was this running theme of the woman telling the man she was in love with him, and the man not admitting it until way too late, and causing problems because of it. There was none of that in The Wolf Next Door. Will straight up told Pricia that he loved her. He told her father he loved her. He told his brothers, and her brothers, that he loved her. And it made their romance much better and much more believable.
Magic, romance, heart-break, rivals, witches, and true love…all tied together with a sweet, naive, innocent little devil, and a very handsome werewolf. This one is begging to be re-read.
Content/recommendation: Little language, some sex. Ages 18+
Genre: Paranormal werewolf romance, historical fiction
ISBN:9781402236969
Published: June 1st 2010 by Sourcebooks Casablanca
Rating:
Years ago, William Westfield and Pricia Hawthorne were in love—but Pricia's heart was broken and she refuses to let the scoundrel forget it. She knows now that he never committed the accused crime… but she can't bare to give her heart to him again. Even though she wants to.
Will has established his reputation as the best lover in six centuries. And he knows he did it to get Pricia out of his head. He still loves and adores her, snotty remarks and spirited personality and rule-breaking attitude and all. But when he is forced to visit the Hawthorne house to escort his sisters-in-law, he discovers that another man—another Lycan man—is pursuing her hand in marriage. Will doesn't think: The games are over. He decides that he will do anything and everything to keep the other werewolf away, and claim her forever.
This was, out of the three Westfield stories, my favorite. From the time I started reading, I couldn't put it down. It was fast-paced, exciting, and romantic. Although can I say that the covers—for this one and the others—could have been better? Still, I loved the story.
Will has always been my favorite Westfield, because of his happy, funny, warm, laid-back personality… and I loved seeing him desperately in love, trying his hardest to charm Pricia's socks off. Pricia is my favorite kind of heroine: the kind that can hold her own, especially with five brothers. Put Will and Pricia together, and you have an epic couple: They love each other, they hate each other. But they only hate each other because they love each other… a never-ending circle, a never-ending conversation, and a never-ending story… but a very satisfying ending to the book.
The plot was a lot more exciting than Dare's other werewolf stories—not to say the others aren't exciting. But this one surpassed the others. The other Lycan threatening Will's happiness added a good conflict to the story. Pricia's execution of torture on poor Will was both pitiful and hilarious. There was a war going on between the two wolves, and a war going on between the lovers, and it made for a stay-up-until-3-AM kind of book.
One of the reasons this one was probably my favorite, was because it wasn't sappy. I'm not saying the others are: but there was this running theme of the woman telling the man she was in love with him, and the man not admitting it until way too late, and causing problems because of it. There was none of that in The Wolf Next Door. Will straight up told Pricia that he loved her. He told her father he loved her. He told his brothers, and her brothers, that he loved her. And it made their romance much better and much more believable.
Magic, romance, heart-break, rivals, witches, and true love…all tied together with a sweet, naive, innocent little devil, and a very handsome werewolf. This one is begging to be re-read.
Content/recommendation: Little language, some sex. Ages 18+
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Woman in the Window in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Anna has what's called Agoraphobia, meaning that she has anxiety leaving her house. Therefore, anything that needs to be done outside the house, she has done for her. Any medications she needs, groceries, etc., they are delivered to her house. She can't even bare to open a window because it would trigger her phobia. You learn there are different reasons for this kind of phobia.
Loss of a loved one.
Tragic accident.
Or...it could be something else entirely.
Ann also talks to other people with the same phobia and tries to also council them. You don't find out till much later as to why Anna who was a child psychologist now cannot bare to leave her home. She suffers from depression and is on multiple medications. She's separated from her husband, whom also has their daughter with him.
And she drinks...a lot.
One of the things I liked about Anna is her love for old movies. I loved how Finn incorporated some lines from different movies, including Alfred Hitchcock. Anna witnesses a murder in her neighbors house across the street. Try as she may, nobody takes her seriously and blame it on the medication she takes with alcohol.
“You can hear someone’s secrets and their fears and their wants, but remember that these exist alongside other people’s secrets and fears, people living in the same room.”
I kind of felt bad for her, but sometime during the story, I started to get frustrated with her as well. I really got a Girl on a Train feel. The main character always needs a drink or has to drink something in order to keep herself together, even though the alcohol doesn't help her situation at all.
On a different note, Girl on a Train was highly depressing.
The more the story progressed the more intrigued I got because there were quite a few twists that I honestly didn't see coming and I found myself yelling, 'WHAT?' Glad I was only listening to a book in the car and not in my house where someone could look at me funny. Not that people don't do that anyway, but such as life as a bookworm, I don't care.
“The definition of insanity, Fox, Wesley used to remind me, paraphrasing Einstein, is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different result.”
I've read a few psychological thrillers and while they were good, none kept me on my toes like this one. So many things happen with Anna and they come in bits and pieces but eventually make up a whole puzzle. You almost start to believe that perhaps Anna didn't see someone being murdered...maybe she did have an illusion.
Did it happen?
You have to read and find out.
I'd definitely give this 4 1/2 stars. Finn's writing in Anna's point of view is brilliant. You are inside her head and you are seeing everything through her eyes. She may start to ramble from time to time, but that just shows that she's still someone who is suffering. Other characters that play a major role in her life you don't know all that much...but you learn who they are in the end.
It's a long book, but every minute of it was well worth the listen. I will say that toward the beginning it was more like Girl on a Train, but it slowly morphs into Alfred Hitchcock's, Rear Window. I will say that I look forward to A.J. Finn's next novel.
Loss of a loved one.
Tragic accident.
Or...it could be something else entirely.
Ann also talks to other people with the same phobia and tries to also council them. You don't find out till much later as to why Anna who was a child psychologist now cannot bare to leave her home. She suffers from depression and is on multiple medications. She's separated from her husband, whom also has their daughter with him.
And she drinks...a lot.
One of the things I liked about Anna is her love for old movies. I loved how Finn incorporated some lines from different movies, including Alfred Hitchcock. Anna witnesses a murder in her neighbors house across the street. Try as she may, nobody takes her seriously and blame it on the medication she takes with alcohol.
“You can hear someone’s secrets and their fears and their wants, but remember that these exist alongside other people’s secrets and fears, people living in the same room.”
I kind of felt bad for her, but sometime during the story, I started to get frustrated with her as well. I really got a Girl on a Train feel. The main character always needs a drink or has to drink something in order to keep herself together, even though the alcohol doesn't help her situation at all.
On a different note, Girl on a Train was highly depressing.
The more the story progressed the more intrigued I got because there were quite a few twists that I honestly didn't see coming and I found myself yelling, 'WHAT?' Glad I was only listening to a book in the car and not in my house where someone could look at me funny. Not that people don't do that anyway, but such as life as a bookworm, I don't care.
“The definition of insanity, Fox, Wesley used to remind me, paraphrasing Einstein, is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different result.”
I've read a few psychological thrillers and while they were good, none kept me on my toes like this one. So many things happen with Anna and they come in bits and pieces but eventually make up a whole puzzle. You almost start to believe that perhaps Anna didn't see someone being murdered...maybe she did have an illusion.
Did it happen?
You have to read and find out.
I'd definitely give this 4 1/2 stars. Finn's writing in Anna's point of view is brilliant. You are inside her head and you are seeing everything through her eyes. She may start to ramble from time to time, but that just shows that she's still someone who is suffering. Other characters that play a major role in her life you don't know all that much...but you learn who they are in the end.
It's a long book, but every minute of it was well worth the listen. I will say that toward the beginning it was more like Girl on a Train, but it slowly morphs into Alfred Hitchcock's, Rear Window. I will say that I look forward to A.J. Finn's next novel.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Make sure you take a pillow
Horror buffs and Stephen King fans everywhere have been waiting for this moment since 2009. It is of course, a modern adaptation of the author’s novel, IT.
Plagued with production problems from the get-go, I see a pattern emerging here, IT has been in the hands of multiple directors with numerous actors in the running to play that iconic clown. I am of course, talking about Pennywise.
Fast forward to 2017, and with Mama Andy Muschietti taking over directorial duties and Bill Skarsgård hopping into that tight-fitting suit we finally have a finished product. But what is it like?Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare — an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.
Let’s start off by saying this is much, much better than last month’s The Dark Tower. Stephen King adaptations can go one of two ways and it was feared that IT would follow in the aforementioned film’s footsteps. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
IT is frankly, an incredible interpretation of King’s iconic novel filled with exceptional performances, stunning cinematography and an emotional heart not normally seen in the genre. It’s unlike anything you will have seen before.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Pennywise. Tim Curry played the hell out of that character in the 1990 miniseries and it would be senseless for 27-year-old Bill Skarsgård to follow too closely in his footsteps. At 6ft 3”, Skarsgård is certainly an imposing presence and his Pennywise is much more menacing than Curry’s, but to compare them too much would be unfair to each.
Elsewhere, all the members of the Losers’ Club are brilliant. I have never seen this calibre of acting from such a young group. Jaeden Lieberher as Bill in particular is astonishing. The scenes in which they all work together without the threat of Pennywise are a treat and give the film an uncharacteristically poignant style.
Moreover, the shot choices that Muschietti uses are striking. He rightly stays away from confining the horror to dimly lit corridors and alleyways and whilst this does feature more towards the finale, Derry makes a fine location bathed for the most part in gorgeous sunlight.
Whilst not being completely faithful to King’s novel, Muschietti’s film features all of the iconic scenes that you would expect. The opening sequence from the book in which little Georgie is confronted by Pennywise in the storm drain is shockingly brutal and sets up the tone for the rest of the picture.
This is a truly frightening film, speckled with just enough gore to keep it realistic and whilst it’s true there are one-too-many jump scares, the brilliant source material stops them from feeling too cheap. In the back of your mind, you’re well aware that this is very similar to the book indeed.
Overall, IT is better than anyone could have hoped. It’s scary, deeply emotional, funny and beautifully filmed with an exquisite score by Benjamin Wallfisch. If you’re a horror fan you must watch. If you’re a film fan, you must watch – just take a pillow with you, for protection purposes of course.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/09/it-review-make-sure-you-take-a-pillow/
Plagued with production problems from the get-go, I see a pattern emerging here, IT has been in the hands of multiple directors with numerous actors in the running to play that iconic clown. I am of course, talking about Pennywise.
Fast forward to 2017, and with Mama Andy Muschietti taking over directorial duties and Bill Skarsgård hopping into that tight-fitting suit we finally have a finished product. But what is it like?Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare — an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.
Let’s start off by saying this is much, much better than last month’s The Dark Tower. Stephen King adaptations can go one of two ways and it was feared that IT would follow in the aforementioned film’s footsteps. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
IT is frankly, an incredible interpretation of King’s iconic novel filled with exceptional performances, stunning cinematography and an emotional heart not normally seen in the genre. It’s unlike anything you will have seen before.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Pennywise. Tim Curry played the hell out of that character in the 1990 miniseries and it would be senseless for 27-year-old Bill Skarsgård to follow too closely in his footsteps. At 6ft 3”, Skarsgård is certainly an imposing presence and his Pennywise is much more menacing than Curry’s, but to compare them too much would be unfair to each.
Elsewhere, all the members of the Losers’ Club are brilliant. I have never seen this calibre of acting from such a young group. Jaeden Lieberher as Bill in particular is astonishing. The scenes in which they all work together without the threat of Pennywise are a treat and give the film an uncharacteristically poignant style.
Moreover, the shot choices that Muschietti uses are striking. He rightly stays away from confining the horror to dimly lit corridors and alleyways and whilst this does feature more towards the finale, Derry makes a fine location bathed for the most part in gorgeous sunlight.
Whilst not being completely faithful to King’s novel, Muschietti’s film features all of the iconic scenes that you would expect. The opening sequence from the book in which little Georgie is confronted by Pennywise in the storm drain is shockingly brutal and sets up the tone for the rest of the picture.
This is a truly frightening film, speckled with just enough gore to keep it realistic and whilst it’s true there are one-too-many jump scares, the brilliant source material stops them from feeling too cheap. In the back of your mind, you’re well aware that this is very similar to the book indeed.
Overall, IT is better than anyone could have hoped. It’s scary, deeply emotional, funny and beautifully filmed with an exquisite score by Benjamin Wallfisch. If you’re a horror fan you must watch. If you’re a film fan, you must watch – just take a pillow with you, for protection purposes of course.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/09/it-review-make-sure-you-take-a-pillow/
Sloane Jacobsen is the most famous and sought after trends forecaster in the world. Companies across the globe seek Sloane's knowledge about the "next big thing." Sloane may be confident in her work life, but her personal life is a mess. She's not happy with her boyfriend, Roman, and she's basically estranged from her family--all since she fled to Paris shortly after her father's death. But now Sloane is working for six months in New York: she's back near her family, and Roman is accompanying her on the trip.
This book immediately got off on the wrong foot with me as the main character ranted against how society has changed--using peanut allergies and the horror of having to avoid her favorite peanut-filled treats on a plane as proof. As someone with a kid with a peanut allergy (who has met these lovely people on planes in real life), I was already turned off by Sloane. <i>It never really got any better. </i>
Sloane is supposedly a trend forecaster. Her entire life she's been able to "see" things and predict where society is going with certain trends. She is credited with foreseeing the famous "swipe" action. The problem Sloane faces now is that she thinks society is going to turn against the technology it has come to hold so dear: something that doesn't sit well with the technology-focused firm, Mammoth, who has hired her. After all, Mammoth uses a driverless car to transport Sloane while she works for them. They want her to present at a convention that aims to showcase technology for the childless set.
On the surface, this doesn't sound so bad. Consider parts of it satire and a critique on our tech-obsessed society, and it has real promise. Unfortunately, for me, <i>the premise fell flat.</i> My favorite character wound up being Anastasia, the driverless car. Sloane's boyfriend, Roman, wears a Zentai suit (imagine a full-length wet-suit that covers his entire body) and preaches an anti-touch, pro-cybersex agenda. He's strange. That whole part of the plot is weird, albeit one that offers the occasional comic moment. Maybe my sense of humor is not finely developed enough?
The book nails a lot of the corporate world (you can certainly picture Dax, the head of Mammoth, and many of his worker bees). Other parts of the plot are harder to swallow. Sloane waffles. Roman irritates. The dialogue is oddly written at times. Large pieces of the plot didn't really seem necessary. Other pieces were interesting, but felt like reading a research paper (and I found myself skimming).
So while there were certainly funny moments (and it picked up a bit as it neared the end), overall I just found myself cringing. I didn't like the plot, I never warmed up to Sloane, and I wanted to hit Roman and Dax. Maybe I missed a higher meaning to this novel, as it seems to be getting a lot of better reviews, so take mine with a grain of salt. For me, I just didn't enjoy reading it, and that's why (and I debated this a while), I'm going with 2.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review. It is available everywhere as of 05/30/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This book immediately got off on the wrong foot with me as the main character ranted against how society has changed--using peanut allergies and the horror of having to avoid her favorite peanut-filled treats on a plane as proof. As someone with a kid with a peanut allergy (who has met these lovely people on planes in real life), I was already turned off by Sloane. <i>It never really got any better. </i>
Sloane is supposedly a trend forecaster. Her entire life she's been able to "see" things and predict where society is going with certain trends. She is credited with foreseeing the famous "swipe" action. The problem Sloane faces now is that she thinks society is going to turn against the technology it has come to hold so dear: something that doesn't sit well with the technology-focused firm, Mammoth, who has hired her. After all, Mammoth uses a driverless car to transport Sloane while she works for them. They want her to present at a convention that aims to showcase technology for the childless set.
On the surface, this doesn't sound so bad. Consider parts of it satire and a critique on our tech-obsessed society, and it has real promise. Unfortunately, for me, <i>the premise fell flat.</i> My favorite character wound up being Anastasia, the driverless car. Sloane's boyfriend, Roman, wears a Zentai suit (imagine a full-length wet-suit that covers his entire body) and preaches an anti-touch, pro-cybersex agenda. He's strange. That whole part of the plot is weird, albeit one that offers the occasional comic moment. Maybe my sense of humor is not finely developed enough?
The book nails a lot of the corporate world (you can certainly picture Dax, the head of Mammoth, and many of his worker bees). Other parts of the plot are harder to swallow. Sloane waffles. Roman irritates. The dialogue is oddly written at times. Large pieces of the plot didn't really seem necessary. Other pieces were interesting, but felt like reading a research paper (and I found myself skimming).
So while there were certainly funny moments (and it picked up a bit as it neared the end), overall I just found myself cringing. I didn't like the plot, I never warmed up to Sloane, and I wanted to hit Roman and Dax. Maybe I missed a higher meaning to this novel, as it seems to be getting a lot of better reviews, so take mine with a grain of salt. For me, I just didn't enjoy reading it, and that's why (and I debated this a while), I'm going with 2.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review. It is available everywhere as of 05/30/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
It’s not as bad as you might think…
It feels like everyone has something to say about Venom. Amongst critics and fans, it’s caused a lot of debate and controversy. Whenever this happens, I tend to find myself becoming even more curious about the film because if everyone else has strong words to say, maybe I will too?
Before I begin my review I just want to put in a quick disclaimer: I am by no means a comic book expert, and I don’t claim to be Marvel’s number one fan. If anything I’m a casual fan. So this review is coming from the mind of a film lover and nothing more. Now that’s out of the way…
Venom was quick to grab my attention when it was first announced, as I’m always interested when Marvel move into darker, grittier territories. I have a soft spot for villains and Venom’s character is definitely one of the coolest ones in the franchise. There are few things scarier than the thought of a parasite taking over your body, so the horror elements definitely drew me towards the film. Visually, Venom does utilise things we would associate with horror, such as long, lingering shots and sudden jumpy moments. Whilst they’re nothing new or particularly outstanding, I did enjoy this side to the film. Symbiotes as a concept are terrifying, so it only seemed fair to portray them in this way.
Tom Hardy gives a great performance as Eddie Brock, especially during his interactions with Venom. The comedic side to this film was genuinely funny, and gave the audience some light relief after the more horrifying scenes. This dynamic between Eddie and Venom is what really stood out to me, as they owned the vast majority of screen time and had to keep the audience entertained. For me, it worked and it had some serious laugh-out-loud moments.
Some of the scenes are a bit ridiculous, but I’ve quickly learned to expect a bit of implausibility when it comes to comic book movies. I wasn’t bothered by some of the sillier scenes, though I can see why someone would want to criticise them. The one thing I was bothered by, however, was the plot holes and confusing lines within the film that, so I felt this did weaken the script in places. I’m certainly in agreement that the writing was lazy overall. Nonetheless, I was still entertained by 90% of the film and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. The action scenes were fun, chaotic, and made even better by Venom’s presence inside Eddie’s head. Without that, I might not have enjoyed them as much.
I liked the visual effects throughout the film, and was particularly creeped out by the way the symbiote looked before it finds a host. The scenes set within The Life Foundation’s facility stood out to me, reminiscent of other films where science ‘goes wrong’. It’s clinical, confusing and isolating, making you feel just as uncomfortable and scared as those undergoing the trials. I really enjoyed the twisted side to this narrative, showing us a dark side to corporations as films often do.
Is Venom the best film I’ve seen this year? Of course it’s not. But it was a fun way to spend 2 hours on a Sunday evening and that’s good enough for me. It’s a very average, very three star film that kept me entertained. It’s nothing more than that, and to me, that’s okay.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/14/venom-its-not-as-bad-as-you-might-think/
Before I begin my review I just want to put in a quick disclaimer: I am by no means a comic book expert, and I don’t claim to be Marvel’s number one fan. If anything I’m a casual fan. So this review is coming from the mind of a film lover and nothing more. Now that’s out of the way…
Venom was quick to grab my attention when it was first announced, as I’m always interested when Marvel move into darker, grittier territories. I have a soft spot for villains and Venom’s character is definitely one of the coolest ones in the franchise. There are few things scarier than the thought of a parasite taking over your body, so the horror elements definitely drew me towards the film. Visually, Venom does utilise things we would associate with horror, such as long, lingering shots and sudden jumpy moments. Whilst they’re nothing new or particularly outstanding, I did enjoy this side to the film. Symbiotes as a concept are terrifying, so it only seemed fair to portray them in this way.
Tom Hardy gives a great performance as Eddie Brock, especially during his interactions with Venom. The comedic side to this film was genuinely funny, and gave the audience some light relief after the more horrifying scenes. This dynamic between Eddie and Venom is what really stood out to me, as they owned the vast majority of screen time and had to keep the audience entertained. For me, it worked and it had some serious laugh-out-loud moments.
Some of the scenes are a bit ridiculous, but I’ve quickly learned to expect a bit of implausibility when it comes to comic book movies. I wasn’t bothered by some of the sillier scenes, though I can see why someone would want to criticise them. The one thing I was bothered by, however, was the plot holes and confusing lines within the film that, so I felt this did weaken the script in places. I’m certainly in agreement that the writing was lazy overall. Nonetheless, I was still entertained by 90% of the film and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. The action scenes were fun, chaotic, and made even better by Venom’s presence inside Eddie’s head. Without that, I might not have enjoyed them as much.
I liked the visual effects throughout the film, and was particularly creeped out by the way the symbiote looked before it finds a host. The scenes set within The Life Foundation’s facility stood out to me, reminiscent of other films where science ‘goes wrong’. It’s clinical, confusing and isolating, making you feel just as uncomfortable and scared as those undergoing the trials. I really enjoyed the twisted side to this narrative, showing us a dark side to corporations as films often do.
Is Venom the best film I’ve seen this year? Of course it’s not. But it was a fun way to spend 2 hours on a Sunday evening and that’s good enough for me. It’s a very average, very three star film that kept me entertained. It’s nothing more than that, and to me, that’s okay.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/14/venom-its-not-as-bad-as-you-might-think/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Rest of The Story in Books
Aug 5, 2019
Emma Saylor's mom, Waverly, died when Emma was 10 after a troubled history with drugs and alcohol. Now it's just Emma and her dad. Life is safe and comfortable, and Emma likes it that way. But now Emma's dad is getting remarried, and Emma needs a place to stay this summer. So she suddenly finds herself shipped off to stay with her mother's family--whom she hasn't seen since she was a kid. They live at North Lake, where her mom grew up, and now Emma gets to meet (well re-meet) her grandmother, aunt, and a whole host of cousins she doesn't even remember. She also sees the divisions between working class North Lake and adjacent Lake North, where her dad spent his summers. As Emma spends more time in North Lake, she feels divided as well. In North Lake, she becomes Saylor--what her mom always called her. She has her cousins and she meets Roo, who was her friend when she was little. He and his late dad have a deep history with her mom. But in wealthier Lake North--and with her dad--she's rigid, predictable Emma. Who is she really? And which side will win out at the end of the summer?
This was just a good, refreshing read, you know? I found it to be touching and poignant. Emma is a likeable character and the oft told tale of a kid finding her way doesn't seem stale in Dessen's hands. The supporting cast is great--I loved Emma's cousins, and Emma and Roo are so great. There's wit and humor infused throughout this book. Scenes with an ice cream truck, for instance, will stick with you! It's so nice to read a book about meaningful family dynamics and relationships (especially one where the families aren't murdering each other, which is often my genre of choice, ha).
"The past was always present, in its way, and you can't help but remember. Even if you can't remember at all."
What I enjoyed about this one is that you just find yourself smiling as you read. Dessen is a wonderful writer--I don't think that comes as a surprise to anyone--and Emma and the other characters come alive from the pages. Emma has a lot to deal with: her late mom, meeting what is basically a new family, and the usual teen "stuff," but there's still plenty of fun here too. Her grandmother runs a motel by the lake, and there's never a dull moment. But, Dessen also deals with the serious moments with a touching grace. There are some good messages about family, as well as class and status. It's wonderful watching Emma learn more about her past--and herself--as she gets to know her mom's family and forge new friendships.
"But all my life I'd felt more like an observer than an active participant. Beside the wheel, not behind. It was safer there, but could be lonely too, or so I was now realizing."
Overall, this is just a lovely read. It's funny, sweet, and will make you smile. Emma is a great character, and it's impossible not to get caught up in her journey. Plus, with the lake setting, it's a perfect summer read! 4+ stars.
This was just a good, refreshing read, you know? I found it to be touching and poignant. Emma is a likeable character and the oft told tale of a kid finding her way doesn't seem stale in Dessen's hands. The supporting cast is great--I loved Emma's cousins, and Emma and Roo are so great. There's wit and humor infused throughout this book. Scenes with an ice cream truck, for instance, will stick with you! It's so nice to read a book about meaningful family dynamics and relationships (especially one where the families aren't murdering each other, which is often my genre of choice, ha).
"The past was always present, in its way, and you can't help but remember. Even if you can't remember at all."
What I enjoyed about this one is that you just find yourself smiling as you read. Dessen is a wonderful writer--I don't think that comes as a surprise to anyone--and Emma and the other characters come alive from the pages. Emma has a lot to deal with: her late mom, meeting what is basically a new family, and the usual teen "stuff," but there's still plenty of fun here too. Her grandmother runs a motel by the lake, and there's never a dull moment. But, Dessen also deals with the serious moments with a touching grace. There are some good messages about family, as well as class and status. It's wonderful watching Emma learn more about her past--and herself--as she gets to know her mom's family and forge new friendships.
"But all my life I'd felt more like an observer than an active participant. Beside the wheel, not behind. It was safer there, but could be lonely too, or so I was now realizing."
Overall, this is just a lovely read. It's funny, sweet, and will make you smile. Emma is a great character, and it's impossible not to get caught up in her journey. Plus, with the lake setting, it's a perfect summer read! 4+ stars.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Rebecca (2020) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A dull adaptation
Rebecca is an adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s 1938 novel of the same name, following a young woman’s whirlwind romance and her battle to rid her new marriage and home of the shadow of her husband’s first wife.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated How to Walk Away in Books
May 22, 2018
Touching read that hooked me immediately
Margaret Jacobsen is working on the perfect life she's always dreamed of: ideal job; handsome fiance, Chip; beautiful condo; and more. But that all changes in the blink of an eye, and Margaret wakes up in the ICU. Once there, she realizes how bad things really are. She's assigned a physical therapist, Ian, that even the nurses do not want her to have. He's gruff and unpleasant and barely speaks a word--the exact opposite of Margaret. The crash also brings back her wayward older sister Kitty, who hasn't spoken to the family in three years. However, Margaret recognizes she needs all the help she can get to heal--physically and emotionally-and move on with her life.
This was a fascinating and fun book, despite its serious subject matter. It had the unique ability to draw me in, even when I knew where it would go and wind up from practically the beginning. It reminded me how much I enjoy women's fiction, which I feel like I have pushed to the wayside a bit lately for thrillers and psychological fiction, the "it" genre du jour.
Anyway, it took me some time to warm up to Margaret, whose outgoing and chatty self is the complete opposite of me. However, I could identify with her need for perfection in her life, her unwillingness to fail, and her desperate desire to please those around her, especially her parents. She was a very real character, with her ability and need to fantasize about ideal situations and coming out on top when she wasn't in the best position. She was funny at times, but also serious, and it was so easy to root for her.
The other characters in the novel were dynamic, especially Ian and Kitty, if not a bit polarizing. The mothers (Margaret's and Chip's) are just awful, to the point where I wanted to shake them at times. I know Margaret's probably meant well, but good grief! There's a lot of sideline drama with Margaret's family, most of which proves a good accompaniment to Margaret's issues. It's a very emotional read, making it easy to grow attached to the likeable characters (and to dislike the "bad" ones). I was definitely along for the ride and caught up in Margaret's life, health, and drama.
Overall, this was a touching read with interesting and fun characters that hooked me immediately, even if I could see where it was heading.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
This was a fascinating and fun book, despite its serious subject matter. It had the unique ability to draw me in, even when I knew where it would go and wind up from practically the beginning. It reminded me how much I enjoy women's fiction, which I feel like I have pushed to the wayside a bit lately for thrillers and psychological fiction, the "it" genre du jour.
Anyway, it took me some time to warm up to Margaret, whose outgoing and chatty self is the complete opposite of me. However, I could identify with her need for perfection in her life, her unwillingness to fail, and her desperate desire to please those around her, especially her parents. She was a very real character, with her ability and need to fantasize about ideal situations and coming out on top when she wasn't in the best position. She was funny at times, but also serious, and it was so easy to root for her.
The other characters in the novel were dynamic, especially Ian and Kitty, if not a bit polarizing. The mothers (Margaret's and Chip's) are just awful, to the point where I wanted to shake them at times. I know Margaret's probably meant well, but good grief! There's a lot of sideline drama with Margaret's family, most of which proves a good accompaniment to Margaret's issues. It's a very emotional read, making it easy to grow attached to the likeable characters (and to dislike the "bad" ones). I was definitely along for the ride and caught up in Margaret's life, health, and drama.
Overall, this was a touching read with interesting and fun characters that hooked me immediately, even if I could see where it was heading.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
TacoDave (3532 KP) rated Gentlemen Broncos (2009) in Movies
Oct 30, 2019 (Updated Oct 30, 2019)
dry humor (2 more)
great actors
unique feel
I love this weird movie.
I love Gentelmen Broncos. Full stop.
I saw it for the first time in a theater where I was the only customer, and I was a bit wary of watching a comedy by myself, but it ended up being a great experience. This film is written and directed by the same people who made Napoleon Dynamite and Nacho Libre, which should let you know out of the gate that it is a bit abnormal.
The plot centers around a teenage boy named Benjamin who writes science fiction novels. Benjamin is headed off to a writing camp for home-schooled kids. In the bus on the way to camp he meets some other interesting teens and becomes fast friends with a few of them.
Once at the writing camp, he discovers that his favorite author - Ronald Chevalier (played by the hilarious Jemaine Clement) - will be judging everyone's writing. Overjoyed by this news, Benjamin submits his "best" book "Yeast Lords" into the competition. But it seems that things are not what they seem, because Chevalier has a bad case of writer's block, so he steals the plot of "Yeast Lords" and turns it into a new novel that keeps some elements, but destroys others.
Will Benjamin be able to prove a famous author stole his story? Can Benjamin and his friends film their own version of "Yeast Lords" and make a successful movie out of it? Can Benjamin kiss a girl without puking?
Interspersed with the regular scenes of the movie are scenes from the story "Yeast Lords" where Sam Rockwell (amazing, as always) plays the hero Bronco. These scenes morph and shift over the course of the movie as Bronco turns from a manly, tough hero into an effeminate oddball once Chevalier rewrites the story. Watching this transition is fascinating and hilarious.
And interspersed between everything else are oddball character moments that don't add to the plot, but are quirky and funny.
I'll admit that this movie isn't for everyone. It is weird. Some of the humor is so dry you need a drink afterwards. But for my sense of humor, it was dead-on. I have watched it many times, I own it on Blu-ray, and I show it to friends.
Give the trailer a try and see if it is your cup of tea. You'll either hate it (and curse me), or you'll love it and become a fan.
I saw it for the first time in a theater where I was the only customer, and I was a bit wary of watching a comedy by myself, but it ended up being a great experience. This film is written and directed by the same people who made Napoleon Dynamite and Nacho Libre, which should let you know out of the gate that it is a bit abnormal.
The plot centers around a teenage boy named Benjamin who writes science fiction novels. Benjamin is headed off to a writing camp for home-schooled kids. In the bus on the way to camp he meets some other interesting teens and becomes fast friends with a few of them.
Once at the writing camp, he discovers that his favorite author - Ronald Chevalier (played by the hilarious Jemaine Clement) - will be judging everyone's writing. Overjoyed by this news, Benjamin submits his "best" book "Yeast Lords" into the competition. But it seems that things are not what they seem, because Chevalier has a bad case of writer's block, so he steals the plot of "Yeast Lords" and turns it into a new novel that keeps some elements, but destroys others.
Will Benjamin be able to prove a famous author stole his story? Can Benjamin and his friends film their own version of "Yeast Lords" and make a successful movie out of it? Can Benjamin kiss a girl without puking?
Interspersed with the regular scenes of the movie are scenes from the story "Yeast Lords" where Sam Rockwell (amazing, as always) plays the hero Bronco. These scenes morph and shift over the course of the movie as Bronco turns from a manly, tough hero into an effeminate oddball once Chevalier rewrites the story. Watching this transition is fascinating and hilarious.
And interspersed between everything else are oddball character moments that don't add to the plot, but are quirky and funny.
I'll admit that this movie isn't for everyone. It is weird. Some of the humor is so dry you need a drink afterwards. But for my sense of humor, it was dead-on. I have watched it many times, I own it on Blu-ray, and I show it to friends.
Give the trailer a try and see if it is your cup of tea. You'll either hate it (and curse me), or you'll love it and become a fan.