Search
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated A Game of Thrones in Books
Oct 19, 2018
Full review can be found on my blog: www.diaryofdifference.com
This book will shake and break your heart. This book will make you realise that life is anything but gentle. But this book will also bring you the greatest adventure you have yet to see.
I have bought my whole book collection back in 2014. I have been procrastinating with this series for four years. And today, while writing this review, I thank the old gods and the new, for convincing me to read the first book.
I am probably one of the last people that have reviewed this book, and I assume you all already know a lot about the Game of Thrones series.
It is a book about one Iron Throne, and all the wars, fights, betrayals are about who will be sitting on that throne, and who will be in charge of all kingdoms.
Now, starting off, I am still not sure why people would send armies and armies of soldiers in order to win the throne, when it seems that no matter who becomes a king, that person gets instantly killed. And no kingdom respects each other, and kings and lords keep fighting off and wasting resources for a lost purpose, so there’s that as well.
We have many houses, Stark, Lannister, Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, Targaryen, Tyrell, Greyjoy, Martell, etc - and they all feature with something unique to their house. Most importantly, they all either want the throne, want revenge or want them both.
But just to clarify - I loved the book!
George R.R. Martin is a genius! He has created this amazing world, and characters that are so alive that make you either hate them or love them, but with all your heart. He has created relationships so tangled and stories so well written, that he puts other authors to shame.
The book is written from a third person perspective, and each chapter features a character. And with each chapter, George moves the time gradually, so we are not stuck in a loop of time pause. I enjoyed this method quite a lot! It kept the story line going very smoothly.
‘’Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.’’
There were so many characters I admired. But my connection with these characters in this book is unlike any other connection I have made. I usually either love or hate a character. But here, I judged actions, and relationships, and things people said and did!
I liked Eddard Stark’s bravery, and his manliness, but I didn’t like the fact that he was too honest for his own good.
‘’Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?
‘’That’s the only time a man an be brave’’.
I loved Arya’s fierceness, but I didn’t like her stubbornness.
‘’For the second time today Arya reflected that life was not fair.’’
I liked Sansa’s politeness, and girlishness. She had all the perfect manners, but she also would betray family for love.
I loved Jon Snow’s story, and how he overcame his past, and learned to live with it.
‘’Let me give you some counsel, bastard.‘’ Lannister said. ‘’Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armor yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.’’
I loved many other characters for things they did, and hated many others, but I cherished the difference in each and every character, and that was the beauty in it - that even though an author can create so many characters, he can make them so different from each other.
In this book, you will encounter everything: mostly mean people, ready to kill everyone and anyone standing in the way of their plans. You will read about a story of a family that falls apart, a kingdom that vanishes, a fight between kings, how a little girl will learn life in one day, how a mother will watch her children disappear, one by one.
This book will shake and break your heart. This book will make you realise that life is anything but gentle. But this book will also bring you the greatest adventure you have yet to see.
I have bought my whole book collection back in 2014. I have been procrastinating with this series for four years. And today, while writing this review, I thank the old gods and the new, for convincing me to read the first book.
I am probably one of the last people that have reviewed this book, and I assume you all already know a lot about the Game of Thrones series.
It is a book about one Iron Throne, and all the wars, fights, betrayals are about who will be sitting on that throne, and who will be in charge of all kingdoms.
Now, starting off, I am still not sure why people would send armies and armies of soldiers in order to win the throne, when it seems that no matter who becomes a king, that person gets instantly killed. And no kingdom respects each other, and kings and lords keep fighting off and wasting resources for a lost purpose, so there’s that as well.
We have many houses, Stark, Lannister, Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, Targaryen, Tyrell, Greyjoy, Martell, etc - and they all feature with something unique to their house. Most importantly, they all either want the throne, want revenge or want them both.
But just to clarify - I loved the book!
George R.R. Martin is a genius! He has created this amazing world, and characters that are so alive that make you either hate them or love them, but with all your heart. He has created relationships so tangled and stories so well written, that he puts other authors to shame.
The book is written from a third person perspective, and each chapter features a character. And with each chapter, George moves the time gradually, so we are not stuck in a loop of time pause. I enjoyed this method quite a lot! It kept the story line going very smoothly.
‘’Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.’’
There were so many characters I admired. But my connection with these characters in this book is unlike any other connection I have made. I usually either love or hate a character. But here, I judged actions, and relationships, and things people said and did!
I liked Eddard Stark’s bravery, and his manliness, but I didn’t like the fact that he was too honest for his own good.
‘’Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?
‘’That’s the only time a man an be brave’’.
I loved Arya’s fierceness, but I didn’t like her stubbornness.
‘’For the second time today Arya reflected that life was not fair.’’
I liked Sansa’s politeness, and girlishness. She had all the perfect manners, but she also would betray family for love.
I loved Jon Snow’s story, and how he overcame his past, and learned to live with it.
‘’Let me give you some counsel, bastard.‘’ Lannister said. ‘’Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armor yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.’’
I loved many other characters for things they did, and hated many others, but I cherished the difference in each and every character, and that was the beauty in it - that even though an author can create so many characters, he can make them so different from each other.
In this book, you will encounter everything: mostly mean people, ready to kill everyone and anyone standing in the way of their plans. You will read about a story of a family that falls apart, a kingdom that vanishes, a fight between kings, how a little girl will learn life in one day, how a mother will watch her children disappear, one by one.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A tremendously energetic and fun video game spin-off.
In this #TimesUp year, reviewing a film like “Tomb Raider” is just asking for trouble! So where shall I start digging my shallow grave?
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Maddi Zoe (6 KP) rated Pitch Perfect 3 (2017) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018
Comedy classic with mediocre music
Pitch Perfect is back! Expect nothing but jaw-dropping harmonies, startling costumes and classic comedy. The third and final instalment of the Barden Bellas story finishes in aca-style!
The comedy follows the reunification of the Bellas as they embark on a USO tour, entertaining the troops in Europe. In classic Bella-style, the tour is also a competition between the acts to open the show for DJ Khaled during the final show in France.
From the get-go, we are bombarded with endless classic comedy moments. Take for instance, the awe-inspiring yacht opening and the explosive escape.
Despite a confusing start to the film, questions are later answered. Why are they on a boat? Why did it explode? It eventually makes sense. The story then makes a swift flashback to a few weeks before the story began.
Beca (Anna Kendrick) follows her dreams as a music producer. The rest of the Bellas, bar Emily (Hailee Steinfield) continue to pursue their careers
The cast is flawless. Its predecessors clearly proved this. Each and every film is underpinned by the cast's chemistry. Thankfully, Fat Amy (Rebel Wilson) is still as funny as ever. Amy also meets her match as Lily (Hana Mae Lee) proves to be quite the comedic character.
We also see new appearances. The likes of Ruby Rose (Calamity) stars as the front lady of the band 'Evermoist' (arguably the best and worst band name ever).
We couldn't miss the soundtrack (it is a musical). It is fantastic. However, it has to be the weakest of the three.
The Bellas are almost the only artists on the tour who are acapella. The majority of the other groups play instruments, except in another classic riff-off. The music couldn't have ended a more 'perfect' way. A beautiful rendition of George Michael's Freedom bought a tear to the eye.
The cinematography was equally as good as other films. We even get to see numerous surprises from Fat Amy (explosive scenes).
We even see a montage of sorts during a performance on tour. The camera shots also seemed to fit together, making the film flow and avoiding a yawn.
There are also some great side plots. From comical to the dramatic likes of explosions, the action does at points seem unnecessary.
We were also treated moments of pure comedy gold! A classic but predictable scene occurred in DJ Khaled's hotel suite.
Pitch Perfect 3 is a great finale to the end of the series. It roads the trilogy off in the 'perfect' way. Have you seen the first two? If so, we urge you to watch the third instalment. Have you not seen either? We advise you to binge watch them all!
The comedy follows the reunification of the Bellas as they embark on a USO tour, entertaining the troops in Europe. In classic Bella-style, the tour is also a competition between the acts to open the show for DJ Khaled during the final show in France.
From the get-go, we are bombarded with endless classic comedy moments. Take for instance, the awe-inspiring yacht opening and the explosive escape.
Despite a confusing start to the film, questions are later answered. Why are they on a boat? Why did it explode? It eventually makes sense. The story then makes a swift flashback to a few weeks before the story began.
Beca (Anna Kendrick) follows her dreams as a music producer. The rest of the Bellas, bar Emily (Hailee Steinfield) continue to pursue their careers
The cast is flawless. Its predecessors clearly proved this. Each and every film is underpinned by the cast's chemistry. Thankfully, Fat Amy (Rebel Wilson) is still as funny as ever. Amy also meets her match as Lily (Hana Mae Lee) proves to be quite the comedic character.
We also see new appearances. The likes of Ruby Rose (Calamity) stars as the front lady of the band 'Evermoist' (arguably the best and worst band name ever).
We couldn't miss the soundtrack (it is a musical). It is fantastic. However, it has to be the weakest of the three.
The Bellas are almost the only artists on the tour who are acapella. The majority of the other groups play instruments, except in another classic riff-off. The music couldn't have ended a more 'perfect' way. A beautiful rendition of George Michael's Freedom bought a tear to the eye.
The cinematography was equally as good as other films. We even get to see numerous surprises from Fat Amy (explosive scenes).
We even see a montage of sorts during a performance on tour. The camera shots also seemed to fit together, making the film flow and avoiding a yawn.
There are also some great side plots. From comical to the dramatic likes of explosions, the action does at points seem unnecessary.
We were also treated moments of pure comedy gold! A classic but predictable scene occurred in DJ Khaled's hotel suite.
Pitch Perfect 3 is a great finale to the end of the series. It roads the trilogy off in the 'perfect' way. Have you seen the first two? If so, we urge you to watch the third instalment. Have you not seen either? We advise you to binge watch them all!
Darren (1599 KP) rated On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Characters – James Bond is back, he is still a womaniser only now he doesn’t have the same spark of charisma that he had been showing in previous films, he still must go head to head with Blofeld, but he just doesn’t feel right this time around. Tracey is the Bond girl this time around, she isn’t as easy as the previous one showing a higher intelligence to stay ahead of Bond and not following the traditions that her father wants. Blofeld returns and for some reason doesn’t recognise Bond even after meeting him in the last film, so that is strange. He has a masterplan to take over the world or at least put money in his pocket, well bank account. Draco is the connection to locate Blofeld with him being Tracy’s father it also helps with the locating as part of a deal.
Performances – George Lazenby doesn’t have the same level of charisma or charm that Sean Connery brings, this only disappoints and takes us away from the film in places. Diana Rigg does bring class the to Bond girl role, showing more commitment to this role that Lazenby. Telly Savalas struggles to step into Donald Pleasence’s shoes in the Blofeld role almost being a parody of the character.
Story – The story here takes James on his latest mission which is to capture Blofeld after his escape last time out, this takes him in a new direction away from the tropical islands and into the snow-covered mountain ranges as Blofeld is working on his next plan to become rich. The story is a way too long compared to previous films and does drag at times, the fact Blofeld doesn’t remember James is a big issue for me because them coming face to face was a big moment in You Only Live Twice. The highlight of the story comes from the fact we get a surprise ending which does show us that we are ready to continue the battle.
Action/Adventure – The action is a complete mixed bag because certain fights are good, but then the horrible green screen moments just don’t work. The adventure takes James to a new location which is all we want at times.
Settings – We are set in the Swiss Alps on top of one of the mountains which shows us a base that isn’t easy to escape from and away from the bikinis we have been seeing too often.
Scene of the Movie – Ski escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Blofeld not remember Bond.
Final Thoughts – This is the weakest in the series to date, we just don’t get drawn in like before and the attempted new technology use only hinders the film.
Overall: Weakest Bond film to date.
Performances – George Lazenby doesn’t have the same level of charisma or charm that Sean Connery brings, this only disappoints and takes us away from the film in places. Diana Rigg does bring class the to Bond girl role, showing more commitment to this role that Lazenby. Telly Savalas struggles to step into Donald Pleasence’s shoes in the Blofeld role almost being a parody of the character.
Story – The story here takes James on his latest mission which is to capture Blofeld after his escape last time out, this takes him in a new direction away from the tropical islands and into the snow-covered mountain ranges as Blofeld is working on his next plan to become rich. The story is a way too long compared to previous films and does drag at times, the fact Blofeld doesn’t remember James is a big issue for me because them coming face to face was a big moment in You Only Live Twice. The highlight of the story comes from the fact we get a surprise ending which does show us that we are ready to continue the battle.
Action/Adventure – The action is a complete mixed bag because certain fights are good, but then the horrible green screen moments just don’t work. The adventure takes James to a new location which is all we want at times.
Settings – We are set in the Swiss Alps on top of one of the mountains which shows us a base that isn’t easy to escape from and away from the bikinis we have been seeing too often.
Scene of the Movie – Ski escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Blofeld not remember Bond.
Final Thoughts – This is the weakest in the series to date, we just don’t get drawn in like before and the attempted new technology use only hinders the film.
Overall: Weakest Bond film to date.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Imperfectly Criminal (Imperfect, #2) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I am a <em>huge </em>fan of Mary Frames <i><a href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-imperfect-chemistry-by-mary-frame"; target=" rel=">Imperfect Chemistry</a></i>. I love the book to pieces and praise/recommend it while running left and right and kindly shoving it down everyones throats while humbly reminding them that this is indeed New Adult.
<i>Imperfectly Criminal</i> is the sequel to <i>Imperfect Chemistry</i> and the second book in Mary Frames <i>Imperfect </i>series. The best part is? Its a stand alone! With the kicker being ending spoilers from <i>Imperfect Chemistry</i> (of course, my English teachers are cringing because saying imperfect a million times in a paragraph is very... repetitve). This book features Freya, who Frame first introduces us back in the first novel as one of Lucys newest friends.
In terms of favorite character in the series Lucy still takes the crown, but Freya is a close second now that Ive gotten the chance to know her as a character. (Shes not as cute as Lucy! Plus the family dynamic in the first novel is like the Weasleys...) She adores food, Lucys quirks, and shes hilarious. Have a quote about how unstereotypical cliches get in this adorable series.
<blockquote class="tr_bq">...hes got me all flabbergasted with the skin and the muscle and the a mini George Takei is oh mying in my head.</blockquote>
Or two.
<blockquote class="tr_bq">This is where I should probably wax on and on about how sweet and handsome he looks while hes sleeping, but really he looks like a slack-jawed yokel.</blockquote>
Hilarious character aside though, <i>Imperfectly Criminal</i> deals with a much more serious problem its predecessor. For those whove read <i>Imperfect Chemistry </i>and met Freya in the first book, Frame mentions a bad relationship Freya gets out of but doesnt go into much detail (after all, Lucy is the main character). We get more intel on what happened to Freya in book two as she helps the guy she originally hired to beat up her ex prove he was innocent when two of the boys he beat up end up dead. While shes doing all of that, shes also struggling with her attraction to Dean and the after effects of her relationship with her ex.
<i>
</i> <i>Imperfectly Criminal</i> has laugh out loud moments for a light read while also dealing with serious, darker issues, and I cant wait to see how Frame will take the rest of the series.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-imperfectly-criminal-by-mary-frame/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<i>Imperfectly Criminal</i> is the sequel to <i>Imperfect Chemistry</i> and the second book in Mary Frames <i>Imperfect </i>series. The best part is? Its a stand alone! With the kicker being ending spoilers from <i>Imperfect Chemistry</i> (of course, my English teachers are cringing because saying imperfect a million times in a paragraph is very... repetitve). This book features Freya, who Frame first introduces us back in the first novel as one of Lucys newest friends.
In terms of favorite character in the series Lucy still takes the crown, but Freya is a close second now that Ive gotten the chance to know her as a character. (Shes not as cute as Lucy! Plus the family dynamic in the first novel is like the Weasleys...) She adores food, Lucys quirks, and shes hilarious. Have a quote about how unstereotypical cliches get in this adorable series.
<blockquote class="tr_bq">...hes got me all flabbergasted with the skin and the muscle and the a mini George Takei is oh mying in my head.</blockquote>
Or two.
<blockquote class="tr_bq">This is where I should probably wax on and on about how sweet and handsome he looks while hes sleeping, but really he looks like a slack-jawed yokel.</blockquote>
Hilarious character aside though, <i>Imperfectly Criminal</i> deals with a much more serious problem its predecessor. For those whove read <i>Imperfect Chemistry </i>and met Freya in the first book, Frame mentions a bad relationship Freya gets out of but doesnt go into much detail (after all, Lucy is the main character). We get more intel on what happened to Freya in book two as she helps the guy she originally hired to beat up her ex prove he was innocent when two of the boys he beat up end up dead. While shes doing all of that, shes also struggling with her attraction to Dean and the after effects of her relationship with her ex.
<i>
</i> <i>Imperfectly Criminal</i> has laugh out loud moments for a light read while also dealing with serious, darker issues, and I cant wait to see how Frame will take the rest of the series.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-imperfectly-criminal-by-mary-frame/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Hello, is This Planet Earth?: My View from the International Space Station
Book
The first book by astronaut Tim Peake - a mesmerising collection of over 150 of Tim's stunning...
Deborah (162 KP) rated Richard III: The King in the Car Park in Books
Dec 21, 2018
I quote from the final page of this publication: "The writer of this book will face similar virulent criticism. It will be savaged in the book reviews on Amazon, mainly by non-readers, to take its ratings and thus popularity down." In fact, this is the last, but by no means the only rant by the author who appears to have a definite chip on his shoulder for some reason. Since he subjects Thomas Penn's work, 'The Winter King' to such virulent criticism, one can only suspect that he was turned down by Penn's publisher. One can hardly be surprised. I have read this book, despite wanting on a number of occasions to give up in disgust. It is full of errors of spelling (e.g. youngest for younger, now instead of not), so has evidently not had either a proof reader or an editor. There are also many factual errors with names and titles becoming hopelessly confused. On one page we're told that Sir James Tyrell was hanged and a couple of pages later we're told that Henry Tudor was so kind as to merely condescend to cut his head off!
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
World War I was called “The Great War” and “The War to End All Wars” as the sheer number of nations and continents involved in the conflict as well as the tremendous loss of life; was thought to be so horrific that war would become a thing of the past.
As we know this did not happen as a generation later the world was once again at war with even great death and destruction to follow. However in “1917” we see the conflict from the viewpoint of a lowly Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) who along with his friend Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message across enemy lines to warn advanced units to call of an attack due to an ambush being set by the Germans.
The duo are told that the enemy has pulled back and as such; the dreaded No Man’s Land between the opposing trenches are likely to be abandoned as well their approach to a town near their destination. With the phone lines down; the duo are the only option and they are at first shocked to learn that it would just the two of them.
As they make their way across a grim and corpse-laden battlefield, the audience as well as the two men get a look at the horrific conditions that combat took place under and how fallen individuals were left to decompose where they fell due to the entrenched and stagnant nature of Trench Warfare.
As complications mount, the two must face up to their greatest fears and challenges; driven by a sense of mission and purpose for a conflict they just want to see end so they can return home to their families.
Director Sam Mendes has crafted an Oscar Caliber film as it is gripping as it is breathtaking thanks to the amazing visuals. The contrast between the beauty of the landscape and the carnage of war has rarely been captured as well as it was in this film and the fact that Mendes had a hand in writing the story based on stories told by a relative really help to bring the full impact of the story home.
The film has some amazing sequences like sustained and extended shots where you wonder how Mendes was able to film scenes with so many things going on in one take as there is a scene near the start that looks as if it is an extended scene with no breaks or cutaways.
In the end the biggest selling point for the film is that it is a human drama at its core. While there is combat and action, they are not the focal points as much of the film centers around the young men and their conversations.
The film will stay with you after the credits roll and I consider “1917” to be one of the best films of 2019 and one not to be missed.
As we know this did not happen as a generation later the world was once again at war with even great death and destruction to follow. However in “1917” we see the conflict from the viewpoint of a lowly Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) who along with his friend Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message across enemy lines to warn advanced units to call of an attack due to an ambush being set by the Germans.
The duo are told that the enemy has pulled back and as such; the dreaded No Man’s Land between the opposing trenches are likely to be abandoned as well their approach to a town near their destination. With the phone lines down; the duo are the only option and they are at first shocked to learn that it would just the two of them.
As they make their way across a grim and corpse-laden battlefield, the audience as well as the two men get a look at the horrific conditions that combat took place under and how fallen individuals were left to decompose where they fell due to the entrenched and stagnant nature of Trench Warfare.
As complications mount, the two must face up to their greatest fears and challenges; driven by a sense of mission and purpose for a conflict they just want to see end so they can return home to their families.
Director Sam Mendes has crafted an Oscar Caliber film as it is gripping as it is breathtaking thanks to the amazing visuals. The contrast between the beauty of the landscape and the carnage of war has rarely been captured as well as it was in this film and the fact that Mendes had a hand in writing the story based on stories told by a relative really help to bring the full impact of the story home.
The film has some amazing sequences like sustained and extended shots where you wonder how Mendes was able to film scenes with so many things going on in one take as there is a scene near the start that looks as if it is an extended scene with no breaks or cutaways.
In the end the biggest selling point for the film is that it is a human drama at its core. While there is combat and action, they are not the focal points as much of the film centers around the young men and their conversations.
The film will stay with you after the credits roll and I consider “1917” to be one of the best films of 2019 and one not to be missed.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Playing for Keeps (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Gerard Butler has stepped out of his 300 uniform and into some soccer
cleats. As a former international soccer star, George (Butler) is down on
his luck. He has no job, and he’s living in Virginia, attempting to
reconnect with his estranged son.
The story opens with some backstory about George’s past before quickly
tumbling into his present situation. George’s ex-wife (Jessica Biel) is
getting remarried, and his son Lewis (Noah Lomax) is having a hard time
learning to trust his real father after being separated for so long.
The plot quickly unfolds into a predictable “chick-flick” scenario, where
the main character is floundering and wants to get back what he once had.
His path to redemption comes in the form of coaching his son’s youth
soccer team, while fending off hordes of attractive soccer *moms* who want
to place hands on the well-sculpted Coach Dryer!
This film is incredibly formulaic, and it’s predictable every step of the
way. That said, Butler, Biel, and the rest of t*he cast* do an exceptional
job given what they had to work with. I even have to give some props to
the young actor, Noah Lomax, for giving a noteworthy performance as the
son.
While there were some great chuckles and all-out laughs mixed with a few
touching moments, it’s hard to look past the poor production values of this
film. Many of the scenes were filmed in a free-hand format. The shaking is
not just noticeable, but rampant throughout the film. It’s very
distracting, and downright shoddy film-making.
The directing wasn’t bad, in general, but I think a more seasoned director
would have at least chosen better angles. Case-in-point: many of the
scenes involving the red Ferrari were obviously lit with bright, white
lights reflecting off the surface of the car, giving us a view of grips and
other personnel behind the camera.
Dennis Quaid starts the film with a great role, and delivers a fantastic
performance. Unfortunately, after the jail scene, he’s oddly absent until
the end of the film. His absence was so awkward that it distracted me from
the people who were on the screen. I even asked myself: where did Dennis
Quaid’s character go?
Uma Thurman, playing Quaid’s character’s wife, and Catherine-Zeta Jones,
playing a soccer mom, did a marvelous job (again, despite not having much
to work with).
The Hollywood stars saved this film from rating lower, due to their vast
acting experience and talent, but I can’t recommend the movie as a whole.
Even their performances weren’t enough to keep Playing For Keeps in the
same ballpark as a well-produced film. It’s shoddy movie-making at best.
I recommend you wait to watch this one at home and save your movie theater
budget for another flick, *but if you are into chick-flicks, Playing for
Keeps will not disappoint.*
cleats. As a former international soccer star, George (Butler) is down on
his luck. He has no job, and he’s living in Virginia, attempting to
reconnect with his estranged son.
The story opens with some backstory about George’s past before quickly
tumbling into his present situation. George’s ex-wife (Jessica Biel) is
getting remarried, and his son Lewis (Noah Lomax) is having a hard time
learning to trust his real father after being separated for so long.
The plot quickly unfolds into a predictable “chick-flick” scenario, where
the main character is floundering and wants to get back what he once had.
His path to redemption comes in the form of coaching his son’s youth
soccer team, while fending off hordes of attractive soccer *moms* who want
to place hands on the well-sculpted Coach Dryer!
This film is incredibly formulaic, and it’s predictable every step of the
way. That said, Butler, Biel, and the rest of t*he cast* do an exceptional
job given what they had to work with. I even have to give some props to
the young actor, Noah Lomax, for giving a noteworthy performance as the
son.
While there were some great chuckles and all-out laughs mixed with a few
touching moments, it’s hard to look past the poor production values of this
film. Many of the scenes were filmed in a free-hand format. The shaking is
not just noticeable, but rampant throughout the film. It’s very
distracting, and downright shoddy film-making.
The directing wasn’t bad, in general, but I think a more seasoned director
would have at least chosen better angles. Case-in-point: many of the
scenes involving the red Ferrari were obviously lit with bright, white
lights reflecting off the surface of the car, giving us a view of grips and
other personnel behind the camera.
Dennis Quaid starts the film with a great role, and delivers a fantastic
performance. Unfortunately, after the jail scene, he’s oddly absent until
the end of the film. His absence was so awkward that it distracted me from
the people who were on the screen. I even asked myself: where did Dennis
Quaid’s character go?
Uma Thurman, playing Quaid’s character’s wife, and Catherine-Zeta Jones,
playing a soccer mom, did a marvelous job (again, despite not having much
to work with).
The Hollywood stars saved this film from rating lower, due to their vast
acting experience and talent, but I can’t recommend the movie as a whole.
Even their performances weren’t enough to keep Playing For Keeps in the
same ballpark as a well-produced film. It’s shoddy movie-making at best.
I recommend you wait to watch this one at home and save your movie theater
budget for another flick, *but if you are into chick-flicks, Playing for
Keeps will not disappoint.*