Search
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Alice Takes Back Wonderland in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
When a book starts with “‘Do you know fairy tales are real’ asked the cat,” you know you are in for a magical ride. Nearly everyone knows the tale of the seven-year-old girl from nineteenth century London who falls down a rabbit hole and spends a day of madness in the magical world of Wonderland. In David D. Hammons version, however, Alice was a young girl from twenty-first century Missouri. On her return to the real world she was diagnosed with ADHD and Schizophrenia and forced to believe that the Cheshire Cat and the Mad Hatter were figments of her imagination. But ten years later a white rabbit appears and leads Alice back to the world where nothing makes sense.
All is not well in Wonderland. The Cheshire Cat is dead and the Ace of Spades is in charge. Barely anything is the way Alice remembers. Everything looks far too “normal” and similar to the world she comes from. Ace is determined to remove the wonder from Wonderland and create a place where madness is forbidden. Alice has a big fight on her hands as she tries to end this former playing card’s tyrannous reign and restore Wonderland back to its original insanity.
<i>Alice Takes Back Wonderland</i> is not purely a retelling of Lewis Carrols famous story. Although many of the well known and loved characters appear in this book, so do others from a variety of different fairytales: <i>Peter Pan, Pinocchio</i>, and various tales from the <i>Brothers Grimm</i>. As readers will discover, all is not exactly as it should be for these characters either. Despite them being contrasting, magical stories, Hammons has successfully merged them all together in an imaginative manner resulting in a humorous young adult novel.
Although mostly focused on the goings on in Wonderland and the other fictional locations, it is also a subtle metaphor to describe what Alice’s life had been like back in present day America. For a decade Alice was forced to take medication to help her understand the difference between reality and fantasy. It got rid of most of the nonsense thoughts she picked up during her first visit to Wonderland. In a way, that is what the Ace of Spades is doing to characters he believes are mad. He is taking the wonder out of them, just like the pills to the wonder out of Alice.
Lovers of fairytales will definitely love this book, especially those who grew up loving <i>Alice in Wonderland</i> and <i>Peter Pan</i>. In some ways it is a continuation of the original tale, yet in other ways it could be viewed as an alternative way the story could have gone. Primarily targeted at young adults, <i>Alice Takes Back Wonderland</i> is much darker than Carrols version and combines a mix of real life with fantasy. It also goes to show that no one is too old for fairytales!
When a book starts with “‘Do you know fairy tales are real’ asked the cat,” you know you are in for a magical ride. Nearly everyone knows the tale of the seven-year-old girl from nineteenth century London who falls down a rabbit hole and spends a day of madness in the magical world of Wonderland. In David D. Hammons version, however, Alice was a young girl from twenty-first century Missouri. On her return to the real world she was diagnosed with ADHD and Schizophrenia and forced to believe that the Cheshire Cat and the Mad Hatter were figments of her imagination. But ten years later a white rabbit appears and leads Alice back to the world where nothing makes sense.
All is not well in Wonderland. The Cheshire Cat is dead and the Ace of Spades is in charge. Barely anything is the way Alice remembers. Everything looks far too “normal” and similar to the world she comes from. Ace is determined to remove the wonder from Wonderland and create a place where madness is forbidden. Alice has a big fight on her hands as she tries to end this former playing card’s tyrannous reign and restore Wonderland back to its original insanity.
<i>Alice Takes Back Wonderland</i> is not purely a retelling of Lewis Carrols famous story. Although many of the well known and loved characters appear in this book, so do others from a variety of different fairytales: <i>Peter Pan, Pinocchio</i>, and various tales from the <i>Brothers Grimm</i>. As readers will discover, all is not exactly as it should be for these characters either. Despite them being contrasting, magical stories, Hammons has successfully merged them all together in an imaginative manner resulting in a humorous young adult novel.
Although mostly focused on the goings on in Wonderland and the other fictional locations, it is also a subtle metaphor to describe what Alice’s life had been like back in present day America. For a decade Alice was forced to take medication to help her understand the difference between reality and fantasy. It got rid of most of the nonsense thoughts she picked up during her first visit to Wonderland. In a way, that is what the Ace of Spades is doing to characters he believes are mad. He is taking the wonder out of them, just like the pills to the wonder out of Alice.
Lovers of fairytales will definitely love this book, especially those who grew up loving <i>Alice in Wonderland</i> and <i>Peter Pan</i>. In some ways it is a continuation of the original tale, yet in other ways it could be viewed as an alternative way the story could have gone. Primarily targeted at young adults, <i>Alice Takes Back Wonderland</i> is much darker than Carrols version and combines a mix of real life with fantasy. It also goes to show that no one is too old for fairytales!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Karma (2021) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021
Neat idea for a movie (1 more)
Samantha Belle
Script is rambling and needs much tightening up (1 more)
Acting is often sub-par
You’ve got to admire the effort here.
Positives:
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Feb 3, 2021
On the surface, you could argue that Doctor Strange isn't all that different from Iron Man in terms of structure. Rich, white dude with a goatee lives out his life, arrogantly full of himself until a life altering incident forces him to fight to survive, setting him on a path of betterment and redemption. Whilst this is unarguably true, the fact is that this movie is so much more than retreading familiar ground. Gone are the times where superhero movies play it safe. Guardians of the Galaxy may have knocked down the doors, but Doctor Strange takes the cosmic concept, and runs full speed with it. Marvel Studios have got to the point where they can make a movie about the Dark Dimension, the Mirror Dimension, the Sorcerer Supreme, Dormammu, the multiverse, and audiences will still lap it up, and I'm here for it.
Sinister director Scott Derrickson proves to be a smart choice, as he provides us a story that's humourous, full of heart, brimming with new lore, and is visually mind bending. The aesthetic if this movie is what sets it apart from its kin. Sure it doesn't stray too far from the Marvel formula, but it does something different. Many have compared it to Inception, which isn't an unfair note, and it makes for some wonderful looking set pieces.
Benedict Cumberbatch is picture perfect as Stephen Strange himself and is joined by a stellar supporting cast. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tilda Swinton, Mads Mikkelsen, Benedict Wong, and Rachel McAdams are all great in their respective roles. Mikkelsen gives us a compelling villain in Kaecilius, jaded by an order he's followed for years and turning tail to pursue what he thinks is right (not to dissimilar to Thanos in that respect). We're also introduced briefly to Dormammu, which is certainly exciting to any fans of the comics. With the Infinity Saga all wrapped up, this could prove to be seed planting for a future big bad.
Doctor Strange could have easily just been another run of the mill origin story (which some believe it is, and that's ok!) but for me, it's so much more. It manages to build on Marvel lore, whilst teasing future story lines by flirting with the Multiverse and the Dark Dimension, all while never losing focus on its very human story. It's a fantastic first outing for one of Marvel's more out there characters and one of my favourites of the whole franchise.
Sinister director Scott Derrickson proves to be a smart choice, as he provides us a story that's humourous, full of heart, brimming with new lore, and is visually mind bending. The aesthetic if this movie is what sets it apart from its kin. Sure it doesn't stray too far from the Marvel formula, but it does something different. Many have compared it to Inception, which isn't an unfair note, and it makes for some wonderful looking set pieces.
Benedict Cumberbatch is picture perfect as Stephen Strange himself and is joined by a stellar supporting cast. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tilda Swinton, Mads Mikkelsen, Benedict Wong, and Rachel McAdams are all great in their respective roles. Mikkelsen gives us a compelling villain in Kaecilius, jaded by an order he's followed for years and turning tail to pursue what he thinks is right (not to dissimilar to Thanos in that respect). We're also introduced briefly to Dormammu, which is certainly exciting to any fans of the comics. With the Infinity Saga all wrapped up, this could prove to be seed planting for a future big bad.
Doctor Strange could have easily just been another run of the mill origin story (which some believe it is, and that's ok!) but for me, it's so much more. It manages to build on Marvel lore, whilst teasing future story lines by flirting with the Multiverse and the Dark Dimension, all while never losing focus on its very human story. It's a fantastic first outing for one of Marvel's more out there characters and one of my favourites of the whole franchise.
Fred (860 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Not such a wonder
Contains spoilers, click to show
There are some good scenes in WW84. The beginning scene, followed by the mall scene, both great scenes. The highway scene, the invisible jet scene, very cool. But scenes don't make a movie. Well, they do, but you know what I mean. A few good scenes doesn't make a movie good. The movie is very slow, badly paced & the story, quite frankly, stinks.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Who Runs the World? in Books
Dec 17, 2018
3.5 stars
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What would the world be like if there were no men, only women? Would it be an idyllic, peaceful planet, where compassion and courtesy are more important than money and owning commodities? A world without war, without crime, without weapons? Global agreements with everyone working together and not for personal gain? Endangered animals suddenly thriving in a landscape no longer inhabited by poachers? Perfect, perhaps? <i>Welcome to the Matriarchy.</i>
<i>Who Runs the World?</i> by Virigina Bergin explores the concept of growing up in a world with no men. Sixty years previously, a virus wiped out anyone with a Y chromosome (i.e. men), leaving women to pull together to survive in a dystopian world. River, aged fourteen, has never met a boy, and never expects to – they are as rare as unicorns. Conditioned to believe that men used to be monsters whose only aims were to rape, harm and kill, River believes the world is a faultless society. But, then she meets Mason.
Mason is a similar age to River, but has a distinct difference – he’s a boy. After escaping from a sanctuary – something River never knew existed – Mason has been on the run, seriously ill, but, amazingly, not dying. Despite the initial antagonism between the two characters – after all, they have both been conditioned to believe the opposite sexes are dangerous predators - River and Mason quickly discover that the older women in power have been hiding secrets from the rest of the world.
For six decades, men have lived in sterile sanctuaries, isolated from the deadly virus and the rest of the world. Their purpose is to produce sperm to be used in IVF in order to keep the human population going – obvious when you think about it. Yet, there is clearly an ulterior motive amongst the women in charge, for why else would they keep the male existence secret and teach young girls that men were monsters?
As River and Mason try to come to terms with the hidden truth, events begin to unravel the harmony of the Matriarchy. Perhaps an all female world would not be so perfect after all.
Initially, the tranquil civilisation Bergin creates feels false, a mockery of today’s politics. It is almost like feminism gone too far, claiming that men are the reason for the suffering in today’s world. True, women are still oppressed by their male counterparts, but the generalization that this is a result of ALL men, is a stretch too far. Once the truth about the situation begins to break through, it becomes more acceptable, more realistic even, given the corrupt society we are used to.
But Bergin has a point, how would the world survive if there were no men? For all we know, a deadly virus could rid the world of XYs, leaving women to piece everything back together. What the author is trying to point out is that women CAN be as powerful as men. Women deserve to be part of politics, of decision making, to have equal rights. Despite the initial suggested perfection, Bergin is showing that women are as capable as men, not better or worse.
Targeted at young adults, <i>Who Runs the World?</i> is written in a way that current readers can relate to, but not in ways one may expect. References made by or about the older generation are much more significant than the life and experiences of River, for it is these women that were alive at the beginning of the 21st century. These women were us.
An innovative novel from an up-and-coming British author, <i>Who Runs the World? </i>will make you think about the future as well as open your eyes to the discrimination of the present. It is a very interesting concept with the potential to be followed up with further novels, or left to the reader’s imagination.
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What would the world be like if there were no men, only women? Would it be an idyllic, peaceful planet, where compassion and courtesy are more important than money and owning commodities? A world without war, without crime, without weapons? Global agreements with everyone working together and not for personal gain? Endangered animals suddenly thriving in a landscape no longer inhabited by poachers? Perfect, perhaps? <i>Welcome to the Matriarchy.</i>
<i>Who Runs the World?</i> by Virigina Bergin explores the concept of growing up in a world with no men. Sixty years previously, a virus wiped out anyone with a Y chromosome (i.e. men), leaving women to pull together to survive in a dystopian world. River, aged fourteen, has never met a boy, and never expects to – they are as rare as unicorns. Conditioned to believe that men used to be monsters whose only aims were to rape, harm and kill, River believes the world is a faultless society. But, then she meets Mason.
Mason is a similar age to River, but has a distinct difference – he’s a boy. After escaping from a sanctuary – something River never knew existed – Mason has been on the run, seriously ill, but, amazingly, not dying. Despite the initial antagonism between the two characters – after all, they have both been conditioned to believe the opposite sexes are dangerous predators - River and Mason quickly discover that the older women in power have been hiding secrets from the rest of the world.
For six decades, men have lived in sterile sanctuaries, isolated from the deadly virus and the rest of the world. Their purpose is to produce sperm to be used in IVF in order to keep the human population going – obvious when you think about it. Yet, there is clearly an ulterior motive amongst the women in charge, for why else would they keep the male existence secret and teach young girls that men were monsters?
As River and Mason try to come to terms with the hidden truth, events begin to unravel the harmony of the Matriarchy. Perhaps an all female world would not be so perfect after all.
Initially, the tranquil civilisation Bergin creates feels false, a mockery of today’s politics. It is almost like feminism gone too far, claiming that men are the reason for the suffering in today’s world. True, women are still oppressed by their male counterparts, but the generalization that this is a result of ALL men, is a stretch too far. Once the truth about the situation begins to break through, it becomes more acceptable, more realistic even, given the corrupt society we are used to.
But Bergin has a point, how would the world survive if there were no men? For all we know, a deadly virus could rid the world of XYs, leaving women to piece everything back together. What the author is trying to point out is that women CAN be as powerful as men. Women deserve to be part of politics, of decision making, to have equal rights. Despite the initial suggested perfection, Bergin is showing that women are as capable as men, not better or worse.
Targeted at young adults, <i>Who Runs the World?</i> is written in a way that current readers can relate to, but not in ways one may expect. References made by or about the older generation are much more significant than the life and experiences of River, for it is these women that were alive at the beginning of the 21st century. These women were us.
An innovative novel from an up-and-coming British author, <i>Who Runs the World? </i>will make you think about the future as well as open your eyes to the discrimination of the present. It is a very interesting concept with the potential to be followed up with further novels, or left to the reader’s imagination.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Oct 6, 2021
Less contained than the first film - we get to see more of the outside world. (2 more)
More monsters.
Cillian Murphy's performance.
Uses jump scares as a crutch (1 more)
Marcus is a bit of a unbearable turd in the film.
Long Time, No Hear
A Quiet Place Part II begins with a flashback chronicling the first day the creatures arrived. It’s also an excuse to allow John Krasinski’s Lee Abbott character to show up again despite dying in the previous film. Day 1 is mostly the scene in the trailer where the creatures are destroying the town and everyone is learning that they attack based on sound. And yes, this scene would have been and is far more effective if you haven’t seen the trailer several times beforehand.
What’s great about this sequel is that it is no longer so contained. The Abbott family is forced to leave their farm and their home and go out into the outside world. But the scariest aspect of all is that the monsters aren’t the most inhuman thing to exist in whatever remains of this desolate world – it’s the human survivors.
The sequel seems to feature far more of the creatures than the original film. It’s not that they weren’t around in the original film, but A Quiet Place Part II gives them a more prominent presence. There seems to be more of them. The film does utilize jump scares a bit more often than it should. They’re cheap tactics to begin with, but become more and more annoying after the first one or two times they’re used in a film.
Marcus Abbott (Noah Jupe) is nearly unbearable until the last ten or so minutes of the film, but it’s also a sensible form of irritation. Marcus lost his little brother and his father in the previous film and, without spoiling too much, doesn’t have a great time in the sequel. He doesn’t want to lose anyone else close to him and is now incredibly attached to the family members he has left. This results in Marcus being too clingy when someone needs to go on a supply run or has an idea that could potentially save everyone.
Cillian Murphy inherits the male lead since Lee Abbott’s exit. Murphy plays a character named Emmett and is actually a friend of the Abbott family. Emmett has lost everyone and everything and has remained relatively close to the Abbott’s farm even after the creatures arrived, but he never came for them. He has shelter and some supplies, but has spent so much time being on his own that he’s forgotten how to sympathize with anyone who isn’t himself. Murphy delivers this gloriously conflicted performance where he seems to be constantly struggling. Emmett often knows the right thing that should be done, but wants to remain hidden. He basically wants to survive over being a compassionate human being.
The formula for A Quiet Place II is intriguing because it plays out like an episodic arc of The Walking Dead. The zombie element is replaced with the creatures as the human characters go on supply runs, look for other survivors, and search for a sanctuary that may or may not exist. Since both A Quiet Place films are PG-13, there’s not much in the gore department. You’re attacked by these creatures and you’re basically just gone. The way the creature’s heads open up like a flower whenever they’re around audio feedback is visually similar to The Last of Us or even Resident Evil.
A Quiet Place Part II ditches the tension and the stealth the first film was known for and introduces more monsters, more action, more characters, and more of a world that’s barely hanging on by a thread. Lee’s oldest kids become they key players here while Emily Blunt takes a backseat. Cillian Murphy proves why he’s one of the most underrated actors working today. Overall, A Quiet Place Part II is an exceptionally entertaining sequel with quality performances and a primary focus on monster mayhem which, as horror and suspense fans, we should all get behind.
What’s great about this sequel is that it is no longer so contained. The Abbott family is forced to leave their farm and their home and go out into the outside world. But the scariest aspect of all is that the monsters aren’t the most inhuman thing to exist in whatever remains of this desolate world – it’s the human survivors.
The sequel seems to feature far more of the creatures than the original film. It’s not that they weren’t around in the original film, but A Quiet Place Part II gives them a more prominent presence. There seems to be more of them. The film does utilize jump scares a bit more often than it should. They’re cheap tactics to begin with, but become more and more annoying after the first one or two times they’re used in a film.
Marcus Abbott (Noah Jupe) is nearly unbearable until the last ten or so minutes of the film, but it’s also a sensible form of irritation. Marcus lost his little brother and his father in the previous film and, without spoiling too much, doesn’t have a great time in the sequel. He doesn’t want to lose anyone else close to him and is now incredibly attached to the family members he has left. This results in Marcus being too clingy when someone needs to go on a supply run or has an idea that could potentially save everyone.
Cillian Murphy inherits the male lead since Lee Abbott’s exit. Murphy plays a character named Emmett and is actually a friend of the Abbott family. Emmett has lost everyone and everything and has remained relatively close to the Abbott’s farm even after the creatures arrived, but he never came for them. He has shelter and some supplies, but has spent so much time being on his own that he’s forgotten how to sympathize with anyone who isn’t himself. Murphy delivers this gloriously conflicted performance where he seems to be constantly struggling. Emmett often knows the right thing that should be done, but wants to remain hidden. He basically wants to survive over being a compassionate human being.
The formula for A Quiet Place II is intriguing because it plays out like an episodic arc of The Walking Dead. The zombie element is replaced with the creatures as the human characters go on supply runs, look for other survivors, and search for a sanctuary that may or may not exist. Since both A Quiet Place films are PG-13, there’s not much in the gore department. You’re attacked by these creatures and you’re basically just gone. The way the creature’s heads open up like a flower whenever they’re around audio feedback is visually similar to The Last of Us or even Resident Evil.
A Quiet Place Part II ditches the tension and the stealth the first film was known for and introduces more monsters, more action, more characters, and more of a world that’s barely hanging on by a thread. Lee’s oldest kids become they key players here while Emily Blunt takes a backseat. Cillian Murphy proves why he’s one of the most underrated actors working today. Overall, A Quiet Place Part II is an exceptionally entertaining sequel with quality performances and a primary focus on monster mayhem which, as horror and suspense fans, we should all get behind.
Darren (1599 KP) rated About a Boy (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: About a Boy starts as we meet Will Freeman (Grant) who lives the perfect life in his head, no job because of his father’s royalties, no responsibilities and no relationship, he can jump from woman to woman and now he has learnt about single mums, he new target. Marcus (Hoult) is a young boy whose single mother is battling depression and when the two become unlikely friends.
As the friendship builds between Will and Marcus, the two learn valuable life lessons with Will finally learning the serious side to life, one he had coasted over through his life.
Thoughts on About a Boy
Characters – Will is the playboy bachelor who has gone from woman to woman never taking responsibility in anything in his life, at the age of 38 he isn’t getting any younger and wants to look to a new location to meet women, which finally gives him a chance to look at his own life errors and start to make something from life. Marcus is a bullied young boy, his mother is battling depression and he never fits in at school, he sees a male role model in Will and starts to becoming friends with Will where he can starts to learn how to be who he should be. This character is drawn up wonderfully because he doesn’t understand the problems his mother is going through, while he is aware there is a problem it reflects in his everyday life. Fiona is the mother of Marcus, she is battle depression in her life while trying her hardest to stay positive for Marcus, a battle she isn’t always winning. Rachel is the woman that shows Will a new meaning to life, only she is the one that could shatter his new look too.
Performances – Hugh Grant is easily one of the most British actors out there, he gives one of his best performances here that will make you like his bad character. This role could easily be a look at the person people believed he would be in real life. Nicholas Hoult gives one of the greatest breakthrough performances for a young star and by seeing just how far he has gone since this shows the early talent he showed. Toni Collette gives us a supporting performance that is just as difficult to watch because of her characters problems that it is an essential performance to see. Rachel Weisz is good in her supporting role, she doesn’t need to do too much with her character though.
Story – The story here plays out as a middle-aged man needing to grow up, a young boy who needs a male role model and understand that life isn’t going to be perfect no matter how much you want to believe it. The growing up side of the story is the one that we get to focus on the most and is everything you expect it to be. There is however a much deeper and stronger side to this story we see, that comes from seeing how young Marcus doesn’t completely understand his mother’s depression and just wants somebody to talk to, while finding his own way to fix her. Now this is important because the mental health issues are a bigger talking point now and showing it through the eyes of an innocent young boy shows how difficult it can be to talk about and deal with, with him never truly understanding what the problems are.
Comedy/Romance – This film did get me laughing a lot, this is usually hard for any comedy movie, this has so many clever visions on life through the shallow nature Will has. The romance is the backburner because it shows us just how Will is trying to find women, even if one does change his life.
Settings – The film is set in London, we get the see the home environment, which for the most part are empty, the social life and everyday life, nothing is new.
Scene of the Movie – Be a Godfather question?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The generic bullies.
Final Thoughts – This is a brilliant comedy that gets everything right with the way the comedy is handled, we do get a big issue covered and is a film that people need to look back on and watch.
Overall: Must watch comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/26/about-a-boy-2002/
As the friendship builds between Will and Marcus, the two learn valuable life lessons with Will finally learning the serious side to life, one he had coasted over through his life.
Thoughts on About a Boy
Characters – Will is the playboy bachelor who has gone from woman to woman never taking responsibility in anything in his life, at the age of 38 he isn’t getting any younger and wants to look to a new location to meet women, which finally gives him a chance to look at his own life errors and start to make something from life. Marcus is a bullied young boy, his mother is battling depression and he never fits in at school, he sees a male role model in Will and starts to becoming friends with Will where he can starts to learn how to be who he should be. This character is drawn up wonderfully because he doesn’t understand the problems his mother is going through, while he is aware there is a problem it reflects in his everyday life. Fiona is the mother of Marcus, she is battle depression in her life while trying her hardest to stay positive for Marcus, a battle she isn’t always winning. Rachel is the woman that shows Will a new meaning to life, only she is the one that could shatter his new look too.
Performances – Hugh Grant is easily one of the most British actors out there, he gives one of his best performances here that will make you like his bad character. This role could easily be a look at the person people believed he would be in real life. Nicholas Hoult gives one of the greatest breakthrough performances for a young star and by seeing just how far he has gone since this shows the early talent he showed. Toni Collette gives us a supporting performance that is just as difficult to watch because of her characters problems that it is an essential performance to see. Rachel Weisz is good in her supporting role, she doesn’t need to do too much with her character though.
Story – The story here plays out as a middle-aged man needing to grow up, a young boy who needs a male role model and understand that life isn’t going to be perfect no matter how much you want to believe it. The growing up side of the story is the one that we get to focus on the most and is everything you expect it to be. There is however a much deeper and stronger side to this story we see, that comes from seeing how young Marcus doesn’t completely understand his mother’s depression and just wants somebody to talk to, while finding his own way to fix her. Now this is important because the mental health issues are a bigger talking point now and showing it through the eyes of an innocent young boy shows how difficult it can be to talk about and deal with, with him never truly understanding what the problems are.
Comedy/Romance – This film did get me laughing a lot, this is usually hard for any comedy movie, this has so many clever visions on life through the shallow nature Will has. The romance is the backburner because it shows us just how Will is trying to find women, even if one does change his life.
Settings – The film is set in London, we get the see the home environment, which for the most part are empty, the social life and everyday life, nothing is new.
Scene of the Movie – Be a Godfather question?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The generic bullies.
Final Thoughts – This is a brilliant comedy that gets everything right with the way the comedy is handled, we do get a big issue covered and is a film that people need to look back on and watch.
Overall: Must watch comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/26/about-a-boy-2002/
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Jekel Loves Hyde in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Jekel Loves Hyde by Beth Fantaskey
Genre: Young Adult
ISBN:9780152063900
Rating: 4
Using their last names –and a mysterious box of notes in her dad's office—to their advantage, Jill Jekel and Tristen Hyde attempt to recreate the formula from the classic novel for a science competition. Tristen is becoming lost inside his other half, and knows that the formula is the only way to save himself… and Jill, since the beast wants to kill her. We've all heard about the kiss that alters your soul, but when Jill accidently consumes a little bit of a formula, things… change.
I read this book in one sitting. Even for a bookaholic like myself, I generally don't have that much patience.
There were a few things about Jekel Loves Hyde that really stuck out for me: One of them was happy-land syndrome. If you've never heard me refer to it before, it's where everything works out just perfect for the character's advantage, nobody argues, and everyone forgives each other. Jekel Loves Hyde did not have happy-land syndrome. The relationship was a rollercoaster, the plot was very complex, and things didn't always work out ideally. It made the story realistic and believable. I think if everything had worked out ideally it would have been to ridiculous to read.
Another thing was the plot. It was very twisted and complicated, and never ceased to surprise me. I had no idea what to expect from this book when I first started reading it, and that continued all through the book. From the very beginning, I knew the characters were keeping secrets from me, which compelled me to continue reading until 2 :00 AM (literally).
Some of the characters I thought I liked, but as the story went on I discovered what kind of people they really were, and I began to dislike them a lot. The main characters, Jill and Tristen, I liked. I can't say I "liked" their relationship though the story, because as I mentioned earlier, it wasn't always pretty. There were some pretty serious downfalls, but then again some pretty wonderful uprisings.
As far as the writing, it was decent but there were some fragments that were scattered throughout that were disappointing. Between the great plot, the characters, and the enjoyment, the mediocrity doesn't stand out too bad.
The end was great. It answered my questions, and gave a definite conclusion to their relationship—that I liked! Maybe it's the way I've been raised, but when the hero and the heroine's story ends with them only dating, I feel like the story can't be over. Ending with them engaged, her mother no longer off the deep end, and the "bad guy" gone forever, was pretty much perfect.
Content: sexual references, some language.
Recommendation: Ages 16+
Genre: Young Adult
ISBN:9780152063900
Rating: 4
Using their last names –and a mysterious box of notes in her dad's office—to their advantage, Jill Jekel and Tristen Hyde attempt to recreate the formula from the classic novel for a science competition. Tristen is becoming lost inside his other half, and knows that the formula is the only way to save himself… and Jill, since the beast wants to kill her. We've all heard about the kiss that alters your soul, but when Jill accidently consumes a little bit of a formula, things… change.
I read this book in one sitting. Even for a bookaholic like myself, I generally don't have that much patience.
There were a few things about Jekel Loves Hyde that really stuck out for me: One of them was happy-land syndrome. If you've never heard me refer to it before, it's where everything works out just perfect for the character's advantage, nobody argues, and everyone forgives each other. Jekel Loves Hyde did not have happy-land syndrome. The relationship was a rollercoaster, the plot was very complex, and things didn't always work out ideally. It made the story realistic and believable. I think if everything had worked out ideally it would have been to ridiculous to read.
Another thing was the plot. It was very twisted and complicated, and never ceased to surprise me. I had no idea what to expect from this book when I first started reading it, and that continued all through the book. From the very beginning, I knew the characters were keeping secrets from me, which compelled me to continue reading until 2 :00 AM (literally).
Some of the characters I thought I liked, but as the story went on I discovered what kind of people they really were, and I began to dislike them a lot. The main characters, Jill and Tristen, I liked. I can't say I "liked" their relationship though the story, because as I mentioned earlier, it wasn't always pretty. There were some pretty serious downfalls, but then again some pretty wonderful uprisings.
As far as the writing, it was decent but there were some fragments that were scattered throughout that were disappointing. Between the great plot, the characters, and the enjoyment, the mediocrity doesn't stand out too bad.
The end was great. It answered my questions, and gave a definite conclusion to their relationship—that I liked! Maybe it's the way I've been raised, but when the hero and the heroine's story ends with them only dating, I feel like the story can't be over. Ending with them engaged, her mother no longer off the deep end, and the "bad guy" gone forever, was pretty much perfect.
Content: sexual references, some language.
Recommendation: Ages 16+
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Unlocked (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
London Has Fallen, but good
Every year it happens, a big blockbuster comes along and absolutely obliterates the competition at the box office. This year, that award has gone to the much-hyped and slightly disappointing Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2.
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Problem with Forever in Books
Dec 7, 2018
3.5
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Jennifer L. Armentrout is an American author best known for her young adult novel<i> Obsidian</i>. Although her previous books have contained fantasy elements, <i>The Problem With Forever</i> tackles a contemporary, realistic situation. It is a story of two teenage abuse survivors, and the ways they try to break free from their past.
Mallory has spent four years in therapy since being adopted/rescued by a couple of doctors, Carl and Rosa. Struggling with selective mutism as a result of her past, she has been unable to live a “normal” life. However, Mallory has ambitions to go to college, but in order to do this she must be able to cope being around and speaking to other people. So she takes what feels like the biggest step of her life and enrolls in high school for her senior year.
Of course high school was going to be a life changing experience for Mallory but she got even more than she bargained for. On her very first day she meets Rider, or rather is reunited; the boy she was in a foster home with. Neither believed they would ever see each other again and are delighted about being able to rekindle their strong friendship; except there are many obstacles in the way of their ‘happy ever after.’ A jealous girlfriend, over-protective parents, contrasting social circumstances, and, perhaps most importantly, the effects their challenging past has had on the pair.
The horror of Mallory and Rider’s past makes The Problem With Forever a heart-wrenching tale. It is shocking to think that children in real life have gone through, or are going through, similar experiences. Readers will want a happy ending for both characters, yet will undergo a foreboding sense that something will go wrong.
<i>The Problem With Forever</i> is also a love story – however this is where I think the novel falls down. The romance that blooms between Mallory and Rider seems to happen far too quickly, especially as they have only recently been reunited. That is not the only problem: Mallory and Rider grew up like foster siblings, which makes their new relationship feel somewhat wrong. The overall story could have been just as good without love coming into play.
Overall, I am sure readers will agree, Armentrout’s latest novel is a heart-wrenching story that comes with a strong message about letting go of the past and becoming someone new, someone better. You may have had a bad past, but you will have new experiences if you let yourself. You will not feel this way forever. Full of powerful statements, <i>The Problem With Forever</i> is likely to move many to tears – so be prepared!
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Jennifer L. Armentrout is an American author best known for her young adult novel<i> Obsidian</i>. Although her previous books have contained fantasy elements, <i>The Problem With Forever</i> tackles a contemporary, realistic situation. It is a story of two teenage abuse survivors, and the ways they try to break free from their past.
Mallory has spent four years in therapy since being adopted/rescued by a couple of doctors, Carl and Rosa. Struggling with selective mutism as a result of her past, she has been unable to live a “normal” life. However, Mallory has ambitions to go to college, but in order to do this she must be able to cope being around and speaking to other people. So she takes what feels like the biggest step of her life and enrolls in high school for her senior year.
Of course high school was going to be a life changing experience for Mallory but she got even more than she bargained for. On her very first day she meets Rider, or rather is reunited; the boy she was in a foster home with. Neither believed they would ever see each other again and are delighted about being able to rekindle their strong friendship; except there are many obstacles in the way of their ‘happy ever after.’ A jealous girlfriend, over-protective parents, contrasting social circumstances, and, perhaps most importantly, the effects their challenging past has had on the pair.
The horror of Mallory and Rider’s past makes The Problem With Forever a heart-wrenching tale. It is shocking to think that children in real life have gone through, or are going through, similar experiences. Readers will want a happy ending for both characters, yet will undergo a foreboding sense that something will go wrong.
<i>The Problem With Forever</i> is also a love story – however this is where I think the novel falls down. The romance that blooms between Mallory and Rider seems to happen far too quickly, especially as they have only recently been reunited. That is not the only problem: Mallory and Rider grew up like foster siblings, which makes their new relationship feel somewhat wrong. The overall story could have been just as good without love coming into play.
Overall, I am sure readers will agree, Armentrout’s latest novel is a heart-wrenching story that comes with a strong message about letting go of the past and becoming someone new, someone better. You may have had a bad past, but you will have new experiences if you let yourself. You will not feel this way forever. Full of powerful statements, <i>The Problem With Forever</i> is likely to move many to tears – so be prepared!