Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 10, 2020
Verdict: Sensational
Story: 1917 starts as Lance Corporal Blake (Chapman) is assigned to pick one man, Lance Corporal Schofield (MacKay) to get a new mission from General Erinmore (Firth), their mission is to travel across enemy lines to deliver a message to stop a battalion of soldiers walking into a trap set by the Germans.
The two must travel at speed, with time against them, walking into the unknown, knowing they need to get to the battalion to hopeful save the soldiers including Blake’s own brother.
Thoughts on 1917
Characters – We do only focus on two main soldiers, Lance Corporal Blake whose brother is in one of the battalions the two are trying to stop attacking, he is more of a talking, can’t wait to get home, very close to his family, while Lance Corporal Schofield has been in the war longer, seen more horrors, keeps his horrors to himself and isn’t as excited about return home, for his own reason, which we learn through the journey. The two must work together to try and get to the battalions, each step is taking them to the unknown, needing to prepared for anything. We do meet other military people, whose job is to help the two continue their journey if they cross paths.
Performances – George MacKay is brilliant, proving yet again this guy is one of the best rising stars in the industry today, while Dean-Charles Chapman is excellent too, they two do have chemistry that shows off both their strengths in the characters they are playing.
Story – The story follows two soldiers that must travel into no man’s land in an attempt to try and stop an attack, which would see thousands of soldiers walking into an ambush. The story is kept very simple, it is showing as if we are following the two’s every step, seeing each obstacle they must face along the way, which shows the different horrors of war. We don’t get overly close to the two soldiers, while learning a little bit, not having a cheery conversation like other war films. This is one story that is easy to follow, we get the music which prepares us for anything that happens, as well as having a chance to keep us guessing about if, or how they get to their destination.
War – When it comes to the war side of the film, we get to see the environment the men would have been living between the fights, the surroundings that would have been left in the aftermath of the battles.
Settings – The film shows the war effects on the land, we see the destroyed town, the claustrophobic trenches, the fear of no man’s land, it is beautiful and haunting to see the settings.
Scene of the Movie – The line run.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Sometimes the camerawork can leave us losing our position in the scenes.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best war films you will ever see, it is shot like one take, which makes us follow their journey, adding the tension to every single moment of the film.
Overall: Simply Breath Taking.
Story: 1917 starts as Lance Corporal Blake (Chapman) is assigned to pick one man, Lance Corporal Schofield (MacKay) to get a new mission from General Erinmore (Firth), their mission is to travel across enemy lines to deliver a message to stop a battalion of soldiers walking into a trap set by the Germans.
The two must travel at speed, with time against them, walking into the unknown, knowing they need to get to the battalion to hopeful save the soldiers including Blake’s own brother.
Thoughts on 1917
Characters – We do only focus on two main soldiers, Lance Corporal Blake whose brother is in one of the battalions the two are trying to stop attacking, he is more of a talking, can’t wait to get home, very close to his family, while Lance Corporal Schofield has been in the war longer, seen more horrors, keeps his horrors to himself and isn’t as excited about return home, for his own reason, which we learn through the journey. The two must work together to try and get to the battalions, each step is taking them to the unknown, needing to prepared for anything. We do meet other military people, whose job is to help the two continue their journey if they cross paths.
Performances – George MacKay is brilliant, proving yet again this guy is one of the best rising stars in the industry today, while Dean-Charles Chapman is excellent too, they two do have chemistry that shows off both their strengths in the characters they are playing.
Story – The story follows two soldiers that must travel into no man’s land in an attempt to try and stop an attack, which would see thousands of soldiers walking into an ambush. The story is kept very simple, it is showing as if we are following the two’s every step, seeing each obstacle they must face along the way, which shows the different horrors of war. We don’t get overly close to the two soldiers, while learning a little bit, not having a cheery conversation like other war films. This is one story that is easy to follow, we get the music which prepares us for anything that happens, as well as having a chance to keep us guessing about if, or how they get to their destination.
War – When it comes to the war side of the film, we get to see the environment the men would have been living between the fights, the surroundings that would have been left in the aftermath of the battles.
Settings – The film shows the war effects on the land, we see the destroyed town, the claustrophobic trenches, the fear of no man’s land, it is beautiful and haunting to see the settings.
Scene of the Movie – The line run.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Sometimes the camerawork can leave us losing our position in the scenes.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best war films you will ever see, it is shot like one take, which makes us follow their journey, adding the tension to every single moment of the film.
Overall: Simply Breath Taking.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated See how they run (2022) in Movies
Dec 8, 2022
Despite a miscast Sam Rockwell - it works well...enough
The British Comedy/Murder Mystery SEE HOW THEY RUN came and went in movie theaters (at least in the U.S.) pretty quickly last fall and, consequently, most folks missed that this was even a thing.
The good news is that it is now streaming on multiple streaming services so as people gather for the Holidays there is a fun, family friendly (but good for adults) film that young and old alike could gather around the TV to watch together.
Written by Mark Chappell and Directed by Tom George (both of whom who have quite a few BBC TV Series under their belts, but it looks like this is the Major Motion Picture debut for them both), SEE HOW THEY RUN is a comedic look at the British Murder Mystery with a frumpy detective, a victim who “deserved it” and a plethora of potential suspects who are all brought into a room by the Detective on a “dark and stormy” night to reveal “whodunnit”.
Normally, with these types of films, it comes down to the casting and while there are some very good - and fun - actors in many of the roles, one of the roles is terribly miscast and that brings down the quality of this film quite a bit.
So, let’s start with what works - the central murder mystery is clever…enough…(for this sort of thing) and is wonderfully constructed around the London Stage debut of the long-running Agatha Christie murder mystery play THE MOUSETRAP in the 1950’s and, thus, this film is a period piece and that atmosphere adds - in a positive way - to the look and feel of this movie.
Saoirse Ronan, as always, is very good as the young Policewoman who is brought in to aide the main detective and proves out to be quite the Detective herself. She really holds this film together tightly in the middle. Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, David Oyelowo and Harris Dickinson all bring something to the film in their characters (and suspects) that add color and life to the central mystery.
Unfortunately, the usually good Sam Rockwell is miscast as the lead sleuth on this case. His frumpy, disheveled Detective was reminiscent of Columbo and just didn’t fit in this British Murder Mystery. While this performance is not a distraction to this film, it doesn’t elevate or lift this movie either, and - in a murder mystery - the detective solving the mystery is a major cog in the movie machine and this cog just isn’t that interesting.
Rockwell is not helped by a green Director and Writer who are looking to make the leap from television to film and this film feels more like a made for TV film, than a major motion picture.
Which is why this film is a good one to catch on one of the streaming services it is currently on. It is a fun enough film that will entertain young and old alike over the Holidays.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The good news is that it is now streaming on multiple streaming services so as people gather for the Holidays there is a fun, family friendly (but good for adults) film that young and old alike could gather around the TV to watch together.
Written by Mark Chappell and Directed by Tom George (both of whom who have quite a few BBC TV Series under their belts, but it looks like this is the Major Motion Picture debut for them both), SEE HOW THEY RUN is a comedic look at the British Murder Mystery with a frumpy detective, a victim who “deserved it” and a plethora of potential suspects who are all brought into a room by the Detective on a “dark and stormy” night to reveal “whodunnit”.
Normally, with these types of films, it comes down to the casting and while there are some very good - and fun - actors in many of the roles, one of the roles is terribly miscast and that brings down the quality of this film quite a bit.
So, let’s start with what works - the central murder mystery is clever…enough…(for this sort of thing) and is wonderfully constructed around the London Stage debut of the long-running Agatha Christie murder mystery play THE MOUSETRAP in the 1950’s and, thus, this film is a period piece and that atmosphere adds - in a positive way - to the look and feel of this movie.
Saoirse Ronan, as always, is very good as the young Policewoman who is brought in to aide the main detective and proves out to be quite the Detective herself. She really holds this film together tightly in the middle. Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, David Oyelowo and Harris Dickinson all bring something to the film in their characters (and suspects) that add color and life to the central mystery.
Unfortunately, the usually good Sam Rockwell is miscast as the lead sleuth on this case. His frumpy, disheveled Detective was reminiscent of Columbo and just didn’t fit in this British Murder Mystery. While this performance is not a distraction to this film, it doesn’t elevate or lift this movie either, and - in a murder mystery - the detective solving the mystery is a major cog in the movie machine and this cog just isn’t that interesting.
Rockwell is not helped by a green Director and Writer who are looking to make the leap from television to film and this film feels more like a made for TV film, than a major motion picture.
Which is why this film is a good one to catch on one of the streaming services it is currently on. It is a fun enough film that will entertain young and old alike over the Holidays.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Cinematography (1 more)
Visceral and enormously tense movie experience
Visceral, brilliant and a far from relaxing evening at the movies.
It's already won Best Film at the Golden Globes, and seems set for Oscar glory too. Is Sam Mendes's WW1 epic any good?
"The Man is the Mission" - The similarities with the storyline of Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" are evident. Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) has a brother serving in another battalion of 1,600 men under the command of Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch). The problem is that they are walking into a trap and are about to be slaughtered when they go over the top at dawn. General Erinmore (Colin Firth) picks Blake and his mate Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) to run a dangerous mission to cross no-mans land, break through the German lines and get the message to Mackenzie to call the attack off.
Famously, the movie uses the "Rope" / "Birdman" technique of appearing to film the action as a single continuous take. This adds enormously to the tension as the duo proceed into danger. Aside from a chance meeting with a French foster mother (Claire Duburcq), the tension is maintained at 110% for the film's duration. Which makes for an exhausting watch! Congratulations by the way to Ms Duburcq for bagging the one female role in the whole movie! This is the anti-dote to the female-heavy movies of 2019!
This is a movie you MUST go to see in the cinema. A star of the show is Roger Deakins' cinematography which is just glorious to look at. The hell-holes (literally) of no-mans land are one thing, but then we get the sweeping landscapes of the green french countryside (actually Wiltshire, just a few miles from where I live!). But the really jaw-dropping cinematography for me came in a flare-lit ruined French town. The effect of a raging fire in the distance and the constantly shifting shadows of the ruins is truly spectacular.
All of this is helped by a great score by Thomas Newman, particularly at this moment in the film. The music suits the action perfectly, which is all you can ask for from a score.
I first noticed George MacKay in one of the lead roles in the Proclaimers musical "Sunshine on Leith" and then again in "Pride": both relatively low-key British films. Here he is catapulted onto the global blockbuster stage, and has nowhere to hide being on-screen literally for the whole running time (and he is running!). He doesn't disappoint: the performance is a stellar one and he holds the drama together.
He's got good support though: small but important supporting roles come from not only Firth and Cumberbatch but also Daniel ("Line of Duty") Mays; Andrew ("Kneel!") Scott; Adrian ("Killing Eve") Scarborough and Richard Madden. But my favourite was a quietly strong (no pun intended) from Mark Strong as a friendly captain with good advice for our hero.
Is the single-shot idea a gimmick? Perhaps. But it is extremely effective at maintaining the momentum. Perhaps to a degree it is a bit of a distraction, since I was constantly looking for the cuts (and very clever they are too). But it is undeniably a marvelous piece of film-making. The choreography involved with getting all of those actors and extras moving in unison for the length of some of those takes would make even Busby Berkeley sweat!
There are also some truly extraordinary action shots: a barn scene (and its dramatic aftermath) is one of the most incredible bits of film-making I've seen not just this year (that's not saying much!) but also last year.
The movie is not for the faint-hearted, with some truly gruesome scenes that stick in the mind afterwards. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man spent most of the movie with her hands over her eyes! But in general, this feels authentic. My own grandfather spent 3 days and nights lying wounded in the French mud, before being rescued... by the Germans. War is hell, and the film reflects that.
Director Sam Mendes - also a Golden Globe winner - only goes a bit Hollywood at one point: a musical interlude where an exhausted Schofield creeps into camp (what? no guards?) and listens to a wistful acappella. The realism felt like it went from 10/10 to 7/10.
This is a top-class piece of movie-making and deserves all its award success. I went in with a bit of an "Oscar-bait" attitude; the one-take gimmick peaking my interest but also stoking my cynicism. Was this to be just a technically fabulous movie that would win the awards but not really entertain? But my cynicism was unfounded. It's a gripping watch and a truly memorable movie.
See it. See it at the cinema. And see it at a cinema with as big a screen and with as great a sound system as possible!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-1917-2019/ )
"The Man is the Mission" - The similarities with the storyline of Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" are evident. Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) has a brother serving in another battalion of 1,600 men under the command of Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch). The problem is that they are walking into a trap and are about to be slaughtered when they go over the top at dawn. General Erinmore (Colin Firth) picks Blake and his mate Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) to run a dangerous mission to cross no-mans land, break through the German lines and get the message to Mackenzie to call the attack off.
Famously, the movie uses the "Rope" / "Birdman" technique of appearing to film the action as a single continuous take. This adds enormously to the tension as the duo proceed into danger. Aside from a chance meeting with a French foster mother (Claire Duburcq), the tension is maintained at 110% for the film's duration. Which makes for an exhausting watch! Congratulations by the way to Ms Duburcq for bagging the one female role in the whole movie! This is the anti-dote to the female-heavy movies of 2019!
This is a movie you MUST go to see in the cinema. A star of the show is Roger Deakins' cinematography which is just glorious to look at. The hell-holes (literally) of no-mans land are one thing, but then we get the sweeping landscapes of the green french countryside (actually Wiltshire, just a few miles from where I live!). But the really jaw-dropping cinematography for me came in a flare-lit ruined French town. The effect of a raging fire in the distance and the constantly shifting shadows of the ruins is truly spectacular.
All of this is helped by a great score by Thomas Newman, particularly at this moment in the film. The music suits the action perfectly, which is all you can ask for from a score.
I first noticed George MacKay in one of the lead roles in the Proclaimers musical "Sunshine on Leith" and then again in "Pride": both relatively low-key British films. Here he is catapulted onto the global blockbuster stage, and has nowhere to hide being on-screen literally for the whole running time (and he is running!). He doesn't disappoint: the performance is a stellar one and he holds the drama together.
He's got good support though: small but important supporting roles come from not only Firth and Cumberbatch but also Daniel ("Line of Duty") Mays; Andrew ("Kneel!") Scott; Adrian ("Killing Eve") Scarborough and Richard Madden. But my favourite was a quietly strong (no pun intended) from Mark Strong as a friendly captain with good advice for our hero.
Is the single-shot idea a gimmick? Perhaps. But it is extremely effective at maintaining the momentum. Perhaps to a degree it is a bit of a distraction, since I was constantly looking for the cuts (and very clever they are too). But it is undeniably a marvelous piece of film-making. The choreography involved with getting all of those actors and extras moving in unison for the length of some of those takes would make even Busby Berkeley sweat!
There are also some truly extraordinary action shots: a barn scene (and its dramatic aftermath) is one of the most incredible bits of film-making I've seen not just this year (that's not saying much!) but also last year.
The movie is not for the faint-hearted, with some truly gruesome scenes that stick in the mind afterwards. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man spent most of the movie with her hands over her eyes! But in general, this feels authentic. My own grandfather spent 3 days and nights lying wounded in the French mud, before being rescued... by the Germans. War is hell, and the film reflects that.
Director Sam Mendes - also a Golden Globe winner - only goes a bit Hollywood at one point: a musical interlude where an exhausted Schofield creeps into camp (what? no guards?) and listens to a wistful acappella. The realism felt like it went from 10/10 to 7/10.
This is a top-class piece of movie-making and deserves all its award success. I went in with a bit of an "Oscar-bait" attitude; the one-take gimmick peaking my interest but also stoking my cynicism. Was this to be just a technically fabulous movie that would win the awards but not really entertain? But my cynicism was unfounded. It's a gripping watch and a truly memorable movie.
See it. See it at the cinema. And see it at a cinema with as big a screen and with as great a sound system as possible!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-1917-2019/ )
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated McLintock! (1963) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Solid Visuals but Nothing Else
A cattle baron’s wife returns after a two-year separation wanting a divorce.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Rio 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Three years ago, my wife and I moved down to Arizona to open the second office of Skewed and Reviewed. I remember clearly getting into town on a Tuesday evening and the following Saturday morning we had our first assignment in AZ, screening the movie “RIO”.
As we marked the anniversary of our arrival in the Valley of the Sun, it was ironic that “Rio 2” was flying into theaters at the same time and once again, we had a Saturday morning screening for the film albeit at different theaters.
The sequel picks up shortly after the events of the first film with Blu (Jess Eisenberg), and Jewel (Anne Hathaway), raising their children in a sanctuary in Rio. Their musical and colorful friends are all around them and are preparing for the upcoming carnival and the festivities that go along with it.
Blu learns that his former owner Linda (Leslie Mann), and her husband may have discovered others of Blu’s species in the deep jungle, which in turn leads Jewel to suggest a family vacation into the wild to help out.
For a city bird like Blu, venturing into the wild requires a fanny pack with items ranging from a G.P.S. to a utility knife and other modern items much to the chagrin of those around him.
The distant journey seems to be going well, until Blu crosses paths with Nigel (Jemaine Clement), who is still seething over his last encounter with Blu and schemes his revenge.
Blu and his family stumble upon a whole flock of their species and they eagerly embrace Jewel as she has returned home. Blu despite his best efforts does not fit in and struggles to gain acceptance from Jewel’s dad who is also the leader of the flock.
As if this was not enough problems for one bird to handle, an illegal organization is cutting down the forest which threatens the flock as well as Lind and her husband.
What follows is a madcap mix of comedy, music, and adventure as the film mixes very good lessons about environmental awareness and acceptance without ever being preachy.
The animation and 3D is solid and the supporting cast which included Bruno Mars, George Lopez, Jaime Foxx, Will I Am, Tracy Morgan, Andy Garcia and many others does a solid job.
The film took a while to get going and while the final 30 minutes pays off, the biggest trouble was staying with the film during the slower moments.
While it was very well presented and produced it does make me appreciate just how dialed in Disney is with their films as no matter how much they tried, none of the musical numbers in “Rio 2” were memorable and I stuggled to remember a single song shortly after the screener.
Since Disney is the leader in the industry for animated films and have been so for over 75 years, it would be unfair to expect the company behind the “Ice Age” series to meet the same standards.
While it may not be a timeless classic, “Rio 2” still has enough charm and enjoyment to make it an enjoyable film for younger viewers and fans of the first film, just as long as you temper your expectations.
http://sknr.net/2014/04/11/rio-2/
As we marked the anniversary of our arrival in the Valley of the Sun, it was ironic that “Rio 2” was flying into theaters at the same time and once again, we had a Saturday morning screening for the film albeit at different theaters.
The sequel picks up shortly after the events of the first film with Blu (Jess Eisenberg), and Jewel (Anne Hathaway), raising their children in a sanctuary in Rio. Their musical and colorful friends are all around them and are preparing for the upcoming carnival and the festivities that go along with it.
Blu learns that his former owner Linda (Leslie Mann), and her husband may have discovered others of Blu’s species in the deep jungle, which in turn leads Jewel to suggest a family vacation into the wild to help out.
For a city bird like Blu, venturing into the wild requires a fanny pack with items ranging from a G.P.S. to a utility knife and other modern items much to the chagrin of those around him.
The distant journey seems to be going well, until Blu crosses paths with Nigel (Jemaine Clement), who is still seething over his last encounter with Blu and schemes his revenge.
Blu and his family stumble upon a whole flock of their species and they eagerly embrace Jewel as she has returned home. Blu despite his best efforts does not fit in and struggles to gain acceptance from Jewel’s dad who is also the leader of the flock.
As if this was not enough problems for one bird to handle, an illegal organization is cutting down the forest which threatens the flock as well as Lind and her husband.
What follows is a madcap mix of comedy, music, and adventure as the film mixes very good lessons about environmental awareness and acceptance without ever being preachy.
The animation and 3D is solid and the supporting cast which included Bruno Mars, George Lopez, Jaime Foxx, Will I Am, Tracy Morgan, Andy Garcia and many others does a solid job.
The film took a while to get going and while the final 30 minutes pays off, the biggest trouble was staying with the film during the slower moments.
While it was very well presented and produced it does make me appreciate just how dialed in Disney is with their films as no matter how much they tried, none of the musical numbers in “Rio 2” were memorable and I stuggled to remember a single song shortly after the screener.
Since Disney is the leader in the industry for animated films and have been so for over 75 years, it would be unfair to expect the company behind the “Ice Age” series to meet the same standards.
While it may not be a timeless classic, “Rio 2” still has enough charm and enjoyment to make it an enjoyable film for younger viewers and fans of the first film, just as long as you temper your expectations.
http://sknr.net/2014/04/11/rio-2/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
Midge (525 KP) rated The Girl in the Corner in Books
Jan 13, 2019 (Updated Jan 13, 2019)
Very relatable (2 more)
Compelling, mature and thought-provoking
Great depth and plenty of humour
A Very Enjoyable Read - 4 Stars ! ⭐⭐⭐⭐
I was excited to read this latest novel by Amanda Prowse, having been lured by the attractive cover design and the very relatable premise of a woman who feels the need to re-evaluate her whole life, following her husband's guilty admission of his betrayal.
In the opening chapter, we are introduced to sixteen-year-old Rae-Valentine Pritchard, who is quiet and shy, when she meets the very confident, loud and gregarious Dolly Latimer, at College. The two girls quickly become best friends and are inseparable teenagers, laughing and joking their way through life. Dolly arranges a double date for the two of them, her brother Howard and his friend, Vinnie. Rae and Howard, so in love, get married two years later.
From her modest life in the suburbs to a splendid Georgian house in North London, Rae is now a devoted wife and mother to daughter Hannah and her son, George. Following a surprise party in celebration of their silver wedding anniversary, Howard confesses to a shocking betrayal of their marital vows that totally shatters Rae. She is forced to take stock of her position as wife and mother and also her role as a general dogsbody to the Latimer family restaurant business. Will her relationship with her best friend Dolly be affected?
Rae starts to think about all her teenage dreams that she once had - training as a chef and island-hopping in Greece. Can Rae give up on her shattered marriage, live life for herself, and be the real Rae-Valentine?
The planned anniversary celebration trip to Antigua still goes ahead, however, Dolly travels with Rae, instead of Howard. Dolly's divided loyalties and a handsome and friendly, young barman are just the starts of matters becoming even more complicated. In Antigua, Rae contemplates the possibility of continuing with her marriage and what this might mean for her friendship with the enthusiastic Dolly. A reconciliation with Howard may be much more difficult than everyone thinks.
This is a wonderful story for anyone who has always felt that they were 'the girl in the corner' at every social occasion or even for just being the quiet and reserved middle child in their own family, with which I can personally identify. Amanda Prowse has a lovely writing style that captures Rae’s tormented soul beautifully. I also liked the way other issues were explored, in particular, Rae’s parents and sister, Debbie-Jo, who felt like the humble relations compared to the wealthy and successful Latimers. Howard’s betrayal is the catalyst for all of the years of unspoken emotions, forcing Rae to face her feelings of being second best in the Pritchard family.
"The Girl In The Corner" is a hugely compelling, mature and thought-provoking piece of women’s fiction. Well paced from the very beginning and quick to get into the heart of the story, the novel has great depth and plenty of humour, however, I thought the ending was slightly rushed.
Overall, "The Girl In The Corner" is a well written, emotive book about love, loss, friendship, family and following your dreams that I highly recommend.
Thanks to NetGalley and Amazon Publishing UK for an advance copy of this book.
In the opening chapter, we are introduced to sixteen-year-old Rae-Valentine Pritchard, who is quiet and shy, when she meets the very confident, loud and gregarious Dolly Latimer, at College. The two girls quickly become best friends and are inseparable teenagers, laughing and joking their way through life. Dolly arranges a double date for the two of them, her brother Howard and his friend, Vinnie. Rae and Howard, so in love, get married two years later.
From her modest life in the suburbs to a splendid Georgian house in North London, Rae is now a devoted wife and mother to daughter Hannah and her son, George. Following a surprise party in celebration of their silver wedding anniversary, Howard confesses to a shocking betrayal of their marital vows that totally shatters Rae. She is forced to take stock of her position as wife and mother and also her role as a general dogsbody to the Latimer family restaurant business. Will her relationship with her best friend Dolly be affected?
Rae starts to think about all her teenage dreams that she once had - training as a chef and island-hopping in Greece. Can Rae give up on her shattered marriage, live life for herself, and be the real Rae-Valentine?
The planned anniversary celebration trip to Antigua still goes ahead, however, Dolly travels with Rae, instead of Howard. Dolly's divided loyalties and a handsome and friendly, young barman are just the starts of matters becoming even more complicated. In Antigua, Rae contemplates the possibility of continuing with her marriage and what this might mean for her friendship with the enthusiastic Dolly. A reconciliation with Howard may be much more difficult than everyone thinks.
This is a wonderful story for anyone who has always felt that they were 'the girl in the corner' at every social occasion or even for just being the quiet and reserved middle child in their own family, with which I can personally identify. Amanda Prowse has a lovely writing style that captures Rae’s tormented soul beautifully. I also liked the way other issues were explored, in particular, Rae’s parents and sister, Debbie-Jo, who felt like the humble relations compared to the wealthy and successful Latimers. Howard’s betrayal is the catalyst for all of the years of unspoken emotions, forcing Rae to face her feelings of being second best in the Pritchard family.
"The Girl In The Corner" is a hugely compelling, mature and thought-provoking piece of women’s fiction. Well paced from the very beginning and quick to get into the heart of the story, the novel has great depth and plenty of humour, however, I thought the ending was slightly rushed.
Overall, "The Girl In The Corner" is a well written, emotive book about love, loss, friendship, family and following your dreams that I highly recommend.
Thanks to NetGalley and Amazon Publishing UK for an advance copy of this book.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Syriana (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Oil, is perhaps the most precious natural resource on the planet and also one of the most controversial. It powers industry and the economies of many nations, yet the regions that contain the largest amounts are often the most unstable, and this instability often results from the influences of the very nations that purchase the oil.
It is a tenuous situation where buyer and seller are wary of one another and at times regard the other as a necessary evil. The money paid for the oil has made suppliers and handlers rich and powerful, but many on the outside of this privileged circle believe that greed has caused both sides to lose focus on what is most important for the people of their nations.
In the film Syriana viewers follow the paths of different people from various walks of life who for the most part do not know one another, yet are all linked by the same cause, oil.
There is the C.I.A. agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney), who spends time in locales such as Iran and Beirut eliminating threats to national security.
A lawyer, (Jeffrey Wright), who is caught in the middle as he attempts to find, and if need be eliminate damaging material that can prevent a pending merger between two oil companies.
There is the grieving energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), who deals with his loss by siding up with a powerful Prince, (Alexander Siddig), even at the alienation of his family.
There is also a displaced Pakistani worker who after losing his job when a Chinese company acquires the refinery where he worked, falls in with a group of radicals with a militant agenda.
The above is just a small sampling of the characters as there are numerous business, political, and Middle Eastern citizens who all play very prominent parts in the story.
The main focus of the film is not only to illustrate the connectivity between the characters but to show how politics and big business influence policy in oil rich nations and how through secret deals, political intrigue, and treachery policy in and towards the same oil producing nations are set into place and maintained.
While this is not much of a shock to people who follow the news, it is the way that director Stephen Gaghan uses ordinary and in some ways unremarkable people to tell the story and how it affects those who deal with oil.
Even those who are supposed the big players are often simply being played by forces outside their control in a world where reality and perceptions are often miles apart. The complex nature of the story is actually a model of simplicity as cause and effect, as well as the ability of big business to influence lawmakers is what drives the film.
The cast is strong especially Clooney and Siddig who make their characters sympathetic while at the same time captivating. The contrast of the men who are a Prince and an agent, yet whose destinies often cause them to walk along the same paths is amazing.
Syriana is an amazing film that is so complex in its simplicity. The basic message is very clear, yet the layers that must be uncovered like a tangled web of lies in telling the story is a far reaching journey that will shock and anger most viewers.
Some may find fault with a so called liberal agenda to the film, but politics aside, Syriana is a very captivating and entertaining film that makes you think.
It is a tenuous situation where buyer and seller are wary of one another and at times regard the other as a necessary evil. The money paid for the oil has made suppliers and handlers rich and powerful, but many on the outside of this privileged circle believe that greed has caused both sides to lose focus on what is most important for the people of their nations.
In the film Syriana viewers follow the paths of different people from various walks of life who for the most part do not know one another, yet are all linked by the same cause, oil.
There is the C.I.A. agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney), who spends time in locales such as Iran and Beirut eliminating threats to national security.
A lawyer, (Jeffrey Wright), who is caught in the middle as he attempts to find, and if need be eliminate damaging material that can prevent a pending merger between two oil companies.
There is the grieving energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), who deals with his loss by siding up with a powerful Prince, (Alexander Siddig), even at the alienation of his family.
There is also a displaced Pakistani worker who after losing his job when a Chinese company acquires the refinery where he worked, falls in with a group of radicals with a militant agenda.
The above is just a small sampling of the characters as there are numerous business, political, and Middle Eastern citizens who all play very prominent parts in the story.
The main focus of the film is not only to illustrate the connectivity between the characters but to show how politics and big business influence policy in oil rich nations and how through secret deals, political intrigue, and treachery policy in and towards the same oil producing nations are set into place and maintained.
While this is not much of a shock to people who follow the news, it is the way that director Stephen Gaghan uses ordinary and in some ways unremarkable people to tell the story and how it affects those who deal with oil.
Even those who are supposed the big players are often simply being played by forces outside their control in a world where reality and perceptions are often miles apart. The complex nature of the story is actually a model of simplicity as cause and effect, as well as the ability of big business to influence lawmakers is what drives the film.
The cast is strong especially Clooney and Siddig who make their characters sympathetic while at the same time captivating. The contrast of the men who are a Prince and an agent, yet whose destinies often cause them to walk along the same paths is amazing.
Syriana is an amazing film that is so complex in its simplicity. The basic message is very clear, yet the layers that must be uncovered like a tangled web of lies in telling the story is a far reaching journey that will shock and anger most viewers.
Some may find fault with a so called liberal agenda to the film, but politics aside, Syriana is a very captivating and entertaining film that makes you think.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Stuber (2019) in Movies
Jul 18, 2019
Lack of chemistry between the leads
"Chemistry" is a tricky thing in a film and one that "either you got it or you don't" - it's an elusive element that can sink or raise a film. Case in point 2 films I have seen this week.
I rewatched the 1998 Crime/Romance flick OUT OF SIGHT - starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. I remembered this Steven Soderbergh directed film as "terrific" and was excited to show it to my bride. What I realized when watching it is that this is a middle-of-the-road film that is elevated by the tremendous (sexual) chemistry between Lopez and Clooney. It oozes off the screen and is palatable to the viewer.
On the other end of the scale is the recent Action/Comedy STUBER with comedian Kuamil Nanjiani (THE BIG SICK) and former pro wrestler Dave Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films). This is a middle-of-the-road film that is hurt (tremendously) by the LACK of chemistry between the two leads.
Nanjiani stars as Stu, a sad-sack Uber driver who does not stand up for himself while Bautista is a "nothing gets in my way" take charge cop who (because of recent eye surgery) cannot drive and hires an Uber driver, Stu (who gets called STUBER, hence the name of the film), to chase down clues to a criminal he's been on the hunt for - shenanigans ensue.
Individually, some of the scenes/scenarios of this film are fine/funny and Nanjiani is terrific as Stu and adds some clever comedic elements to a script that is "good enough" by Tripper Clancy.
And then there's Bautista.
He seems lost in this film, underplaying the things that make him good, his over-exuberance and over physicality (if that is a term) of someone of his size. Is this Bautista's fault or did Director Michael Dowse (GOON) purposely tone him down? It doesn't really matter for it doesn't really work.
And this is the beginning of the problem with the chemistry between the two leads - Nanjiani manic energy is not matched by Bautista - he seems to be an "energy sucker" and takes quite a bit of life out of this film. But...Director Dowse is also a problem, for he brings this lack of energy to quite a few of the big action scenes, underplaying, not overplaying what should have been over played.
There are some good things in this - besides the script and Nanjiani, Natalie Morales and Betty Gilpin are good and we do have a "Mira Sorvino sighting", which is welcome...but that's about it. Oh...except for an extended cameo by Karen Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS films) she brings some energy. I would have loved to see her paired with Nanjiani in this.
If you're looking for a good "buddy cop" film with good chemistry between the leads, might I suggest THE OTHER GUYS (Will Ferrell/Mark Wahlberg), RUNNING SCARED (Billy Crystal/Gregory Hines) or the greatest example of strong chemistry - 48 HOURS (Nick Nolte/Eddie Murphy). Stuber would be the example of just the opposite.
6 stars out of 10 (for Nanjiani, Gillan and Sorvino - and a script and circumstances that could have worked had the chemistry between the leads been better)
Letter Grade: B- and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I rewatched the 1998 Crime/Romance flick OUT OF SIGHT - starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. I remembered this Steven Soderbergh directed film as "terrific" and was excited to show it to my bride. What I realized when watching it is that this is a middle-of-the-road film that is elevated by the tremendous (sexual) chemistry between Lopez and Clooney. It oozes off the screen and is palatable to the viewer.
On the other end of the scale is the recent Action/Comedy STUBER with comedian Kuamil Nanjiani (THE BIG SICK) and former pro wrestler Dave Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films). This is a middle-of-the-road film that is hurt (tremendously) by the LACK of chemistry between the two leads.
Nanjiani stars as Stu, a sad-sack Uber driver who does not stand up for himself while Bautista is a "nothing gets in my way" take charge cop who (because of recent eye surgery) cannot drive and hires an Uber driver, Stu (who gets called STUBER, hence the name of the film), to chase down clues to a criminal he's been on the hunt for - shenanigans ensue.
Individually, some of the scenes/scenarios of this film are fine/funny and Nanjiani is terrific as Stu and adds some clever comedic elements to a script that is "good enough" by Tripper Clancy.
And then there's Bautista.
He seems lost in this film, underplaying the things that make him good, his over-exuberance and over physicality (if that is a term) of someone of his size. Is this Bautista's fault or did Director Michael Dowse (GOON) purposely tone him down? It doesn't really matter for it doesn't really work.
And this is the beginning of the problem with the chemistry between the two leads - Nanjiani manic energy is not matched by Bautista - he seems to be an "energy sucker" and takes quite a bit of life out of this film. But...Director Dowse is also a problem, for he brings this lack of energy to quite a few of the big action scenes, underplaying, not overplaying what should have been over played.
There are some good things in this - besides the script and Nanjiani, Natalie Morales and Betty Gilpin are good and we do have a "Mira Sorvino sighting", which is welcome...but that's about it. Oh...except for an extended cameo by Karen Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS films) she brings some energy. I would have loved to see her paired with Nanjiani in this.
If you're looking for a good "buddy cop" film with good chemistry between the leads, might I suggest THE OTHER GUYS (Will Ferrell/Mark Wahlberg), RUNNING SCARED (Billy Crystal/Gregory Hines) or the greatest example of strong chemistry - 48 HOURS (Nick Nolte/Eddie Murphy). Stuber would be the example of just the opposite.
6 stars out of 10 (for Nanjiani, Gillan and Sorvino - and a script and circumstances that could have worked had the chemistry between the leads been better)
Letter Grade: B- and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated A Game of Thrones in Books
Nov 13, 2019
I've been reviewing books online for nearly a year now... and in that time I have finished every book I have started and more-or-less enjoyed every book and given positive reviews.
But this book has put an end to that. As a fan of writers such as Joe Abercrombie who cite this series and George R R Martin as a big influence, I thought I should give this a read. After all, with so many plaudits and a hit television show it couldn't be that bad, could it.
Unfortunately it could. I liked the prologue - that was interesting to read and had some good writing and interesting characters in it. The one star is purely for this part of the book. Treat it as a short story and ignore the rest of the weighty tome and you won't go far wrong.
From this point forward nothing works. I can see that Martin was trying to inject a bit of reality and grit into fantasy, though it could be argues it had not exactly been all sunlight, dancing elves and heroes with rippling muscles for several decades so I don't see it as the massive change in direction it has been touted as in some quarters.
What we have is a succession of dreary, uninteresting characters taking part in a series of dull and stilted conversations attempting to create some sort of dramatic tension simply by existing. And then quite often there will be sex, not for any reason other than it seems this is what Martin thinks makes characters interesting. And the sex scenes are really, really awful. They read as if an over-excited 15 year old boy has written them.
The structure - where each chapter is told from the point of view of a different character - probably sounded really good on paper. But the end result is almost impossible to read as there is no continuity between sections that are dealing with the same characters, So for the first half of every chapter the reader is trying to get to grips with the new main character while also working out which kingdom they are in and how they related to the many, many other characters. It's just plain too confusing and exhausting as an actual narrative device.
And the characters themselves... I was expecting Martin to try everything possible to avoid any of the usual tropes, but no. Accepted there are no magicians, elves or pure-hearted swashbuckling heroes. But what is left is just the usual supporting cast - the bastard half brother with a grudge, the scheming dwarf, the wronged heir to the throne... there is absolutely nothing new or inventive in any of the characters.
What this book reminded me of most was the Harry Potter series. Completely derivative, averagely written and heavily marketed fantasy stories eagerly consumed by people who don't actually read fantasy. To those who do read fantasy this is such a poor relation to the other fine works that have been published in the last 30 years it's not even worth considering.
If you have never read this, don't bother. Instead do yourself a favour and pick up something that actually has something to say and contains some truly interesting characters and worlds. Joe Abercrombie or Mark Lawrence, for example.
But this book has put an end to that. As a fan of writers such as Joe Abercrombie who cite this series and George R R Martin as a big influence, I thought I should give this a read. After all, with so many plaudits and a hit television show it couldn't be that bad, could it.
Unfortunately it could. I liked the prologue - that was interesting to read and had some good writing and interesting characters in it. The one star is purely for this part of the book. Treat it as a short story and ignore the rest of the weighty tome and you won't go far wrong.
From this point forward nothing works. I can see that Martin was trying to inject a bit of reality and grit into fantasy, though it could be argues it had not exactly been all sunlight, dancing elves and heroes with rippling muscles for several decades so I don't see it as the massive change in direction it has been touted as in some quarters.
What we have is a succession of dreary, uninteresting characters taking part in a series of dull and stilted conversations attempting to create some sort of dramatic tension simply by existing. And then quite often there will be sex, not for any reason other than it seems this is what Martin thinks makes characters interesting. And the sex scenes are really, really awful. They read as if an over-excited 15 year old boy has written them.
The structure - where each chapter is told from the point of view of a different character - probably sounded really good on paper. But the end result is almost impossible to read as there is no continuity between sections that are dealing with the same characters, So for the first half of every chapter the reader is trying to get to grips with the new main character while also working out which kingdom they are in and how they related to the many, many other characters. It's just plain too confusing and exhausting as an actual narrative device.
And the characters themselves... I was expecting Martin to try everything possible to avoid any of the usual tropes, but no. Accepted there are no magicians, elves or pure-hearted swashbuckling heroes. But what is left is just the usual supporting cast - the bastard half brother with a grudge, the scheming dwarf, the wronged heir to the throne... there is absolutely nothing new or inventive in any of the characters.
What this book reminded me of most was the Harry Potter series. Completely derivative, averagely written and heavily marketed fantasy stories eagerly consumed by people who don't actually read fantasy. To those who do read fantasy this is such a poor relation to the other fine works that have been published in the last 30 years it's not even worth considering.
If you have never read this, don't bother. Instead do yourself a favour and pick up something that actually has something to say and contains some truly interesting characters and worlds. Joe Abercrombie or Mark Lawrence, for example.