Search
Search results
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!
Debbiereadsbook (1110 KP) rated Shadow and Light (Arizona Raptors #3) in Books
Mar 30, 2020
best of the three!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book three in the Arizona Raptors series. It says that it is not a stand alone and you should read books one and two first, however, I don't think its entirely NECESSARY, but it certainly would help. I have read those two books, and they were both solid 4 star reads.
THIS one, though, is a whole different kettle of fish!
I LOVED this book!
You feel for Henry. His life has taken a turn he didn't expect. The man who was using him, almost killed him. His money is all gone, and he is living in someone else's house, mansion, all by himself. His hockey is on the line, because of the accident and his mind is on a downward spiral.
Enter Apollo.
Apollo is the best friend of Adler, the man paying for the house, who is Henry's brother's friend. Apollo is at a loose end since Adler is all loved up, and Apollo needs some sun. So Apollo goes to Arizona to look after Henry while he gets backs on his feet and back onto the ice.
Apollo is just the kind of man Henry wants, but who would want a washed up hockey player who might go blind? Apollo clearly wants Henry, but he is supposed to be going home at the end of the summer. Can he let his heart take the break?
This one is my favourite of the three, it really is.
It had me crying in places, laughing in others. Shouting at the kindle, and cheering away. I wanted to wrap Henry up in cotton wool and I wanted to smack him upside the head. Apollo too!
There are numerous references to The Harrisburg Railers players and pop ups from all the major players and team from this series. I loved that.
The relationship between Apollo and Henry is slow and sweet, and I loved that. They grow into each other, you know, as the book progresses. It's beautifully written, and gave me so many feels!
Ryker Madsen is Henry's team mate, he plays the same line (although, to be honest, I have no idea what that actually means, I just thought someone MIGHT!) and HIS book was in the Owatonna U Hockey series. I did NOT like Ryker in that book. He does redeem himself in that series somewhat, but HERE? As Henry's best friend, that kid done good! So, as a totally irrelevent point, Ryker? I forgive you!
So, my favourite of the three so far, but I know there is one more out later this year.
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book three in the Arizona Raptors series. It says that it is not a stand alone and you should read books one and two first, however, I don't think its entirely NECESSARY, but it certainly would help. I have read those two books, and they were both solid 4 star reads.
THIS one, though, is a whole different kettle of fish!
I LOVED this book!
You feel for Henry. His life has taken a turn he didn't expect. The man who was using him, almost killed him. His money is all gone, and he is living in someone else's house, mansion, all by himself. His hockey is on the line, because of the accident and his mind is on a downward spiral.
Enter Apollo.
Apollo is the best friend of Adler, the man paying for the house, who is Henry's brother's friend. Apollo is at a loose end since Adler is all loved up, and Apollo needs some sun. So Apollo goes to Arizona to look after Henry while he gets backs on his feet and back onto the ice.
Apollo is just the kind of man Henry wants, but who would want a washed up hockey player who might go blind? Apollo clearly wants Henry, but he is supposed to be going home at the end of the summer. Can he let his heart take the break?
This one is my favourite of the three, it really is.
It had me crying in places, laughing in others. Shouting at the kindle, and cheering away. I wanted to wrap Henry up in cotton wool and I wanted to smack him upside the head. Apollo too!
There are numerous references to The Harrisburg Railers players and pop ups from all the major players and team from this series. I loved that.
The relationship between Apollo and Henry is slow and sweet, and I loved that. They grow into each other, you know, as the book progresses. It's beautifully written, and gave me so many feels!
Ryker Madsen is Henry's team mate, he plays the same line (although, to be honest, I have no idea what that actually means, I just thought someone MIGHT!) and HIS book was in the Owatonna U Hockey series. I did NOT like Ryker in that book. He does redeem himself in that series somewhat, but HERE? As Henry's best friend, that kid done good! So, as a totally irrelevent point, Ryker? I forgive you!
So, my favourite of the three so far, but I know there is one more out later this year.
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Warm Bodies (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Considering how many movies are typically released in the first quarter of the year, Warm Bodies is by far the best movie of 2013 so far. “Zombie Love Story” was the first term that came to my mind when I was first made aware of the movie, but it is so much more than that. Part “Romeo and Juliet”, part “Zombieland”, this adaptation of Isaac Marion’s critically acclaimed young adult novel is a humorous and surprisingly fresh zombie movie that gives its own unique look at love.
R, the zombie in our “Romeo” role, is your typical walker (excuse me while I borrow terms from another hit zombie medium). He moves around without purpose, mostly spending his days at the airport. He carries “conversations” with another zombie, M, and his internal monologue certainly lets the viewer know that zombies are fully aware of what they are. As a result of their condition, they no longer have control over what they do. Nor does R try to make excuses for it; they are what they are. This is demonstrated when he and a horde of walkers attack a group of humans. In this group is Julie, who as I am sure you have guessed is our “Juliet”. R immediately falls for her and is determined to have her reciprocate the feelings. This might prove to be difficult, considering that humans and zombies at their core just want to kill each other. It is this feeling, this emotion, that humans thought zombies incapable of, that begins to change R, and other zombies around him.
After the attack, R takes Julie back to his… er, safe haven comes to mind, but it’s really just an abandoned airplane sitting on a tarmac filled with wacky items that R has collected in the time since he became a zombie. Writer/Director Jonathan Levine, who adapted Marion’s novel, has managed to create very smart, witty dialogue, but in a cute way as he did with The Wackness (which Levine also wrote). The sincerity of the dialogue in the movie keeps you interested in a growing relationship that’s way, way outside the box. There is plenty of violence in the movie too, as we see R attack a human, bite their arm, and hide their brains away for a snack later. Speaking of brain, the film explains that when a zombie eats a human’s brains, they remember our memories. This is kind of important.
Despite being a very different romantic comedy, the film also delivers a healthy horror flick. Zombies are not the only thing that is a result of the zombie outbreak. In this post-apocalyptic world there is another threat: bonies. Bonies are zombies that are so far gone they do not care anymore. They’ve given up, have peeled off their skin and attack anything with beating hearts. R says it best in the film. “Zombies do this also, but at least they are conflicted about eating it.” Even though the bonies are fully CG creations, and utterly obviously so, Levine has done it in such a way that you only get quick glances, which is a nice way to keep the PG-13 rating considering all of the blood flowing in the film.
Nicholas Hoult is fantastic in the lead role of R, and he finds a way to turn on the creepy just as easily as he can turn the funny on. Everything our “Romeo” character is supposed to be is remarkably portrayed by Hoult. Of course it helps to have a great supporting cast, Teresa Palmer strong and sweet as Julie and John Malkovich as her father who is the hardened general who is leading the human survivors.
Warm Bodies is a great zombie movie, with an excellent sound track to set the mood throughout the film. But it’s more than that. It is also a charming story of unconventional love. Telling the story from R’s point of view gives it a very fresh feel, but it’s the thought and care that Levine and the cast members put into it that make it such a superb film. Warm Bodies is a love story between woman and monster, and the screenwriting and execution delivers a charm that cannot be denied. Warm Bodies is funny, but it’s also sweet, a bit dark at times, and highly original. All of this combined makes it the first must-see film of 2013.
R, the zombie in our “Romeo” role, is your typical walker (excuse me while I borrow terms from another hit zombie medium). He moves around without purpose, mostly spending his days at the airport. He carries “conversations” with another zombie, M, and his internal monologue certainly lets the viewer know that zombies are fully aware of what they are. As a result of their condition, they no longer have control over what they do. Nor does R try to make excuses for it; they are what they are. This is demonstrated when he and a horde of walkers attack a group of humans. In this group is Julie, who as I am sure you have guessed is our “Juliet”. R immediately falls for her and is determined to have her reciprocate the feelings. This might prove to be difficult, considering that humans and zombies at their core just want to kill each other. It is this feeling, this emotion, that humans thought zombies incapable of, that begins to change R, and other zombies around him.
After the attack, R takes Julie back to his… er, safe haven comes to mind, but it’s really just an abandoned airplane sitting on a tarmac filled with wacky items that R has collected in the time since he became a zombie. Writer/Director Jonathan Levine, who adapted Marion’s novel, has managed to create very smart, witty dialogue, but in a cute way as he did with The Wackness (which Levine also wrote). The sincerity of the dialogue in the movie keeps you interested in a growing relationship that’s way, way outside the box. There is plenty of violence in the movie too, as we see R attack a human, bite their arm, and hide their brains away for a snack later. Speaking of brain, the film explains that when a zombie eats a human’s brains, they remember our memories. This is kind of important.
Despite being a very different romantic comedy, the film also delivers a healthy horror flick. Zombies are not the only thing that is a result of the zombie outbreak. In this post-apocalyptic world there is another threat: bonies. Bonies are zombies that are so far gone they do not care anymore. They’ve given up, have peeled off their skin and attack anything with beating hearts. R says it best in the film. “Zombies do this also, but at least they are conflicted about eating it.” Even though the bonies are fully CG creations, and utterly obviously so, Levine has done it in such a way that you only get quick glances, which is a nice way to keep the PG-13 rating considering all of the blood flowing in the film.
Nicholas Hoult is fantastic in the lead role of R, and he finds a way to turn on the creepy just as easily as he can turn the funny on. Everything our “Romeo” character is supposed to be is remarkably portrayed by Hoult. Of course it helps to have a great supporting cast, Teresa Palmer strong and sweet as Julie and John Malkovich as her father who is the hardened general who is leading the human survivors.
Warm Bodies is a great zombie movie, with an excellent sound track to set the mood throughout the film. But it’s more than that. It is also a charming story of unconventional love. Telling the story from R’s point of view gives it a very fresh feel, but it’s the thought and care that Levine and the cast members put into it that make it such a superb film. Warm Bodies is a love story between woman and monster, and the screenwriting and execution delivers a charm that cannot be denied. Warm Bodies is funny, but it’s also sweet, a bit dark at times, and highly original. All of this combined makes it the first must-see film of 2013.
Deborah (162 KP) rated The White Queen (The Plantagenet and Tudor Novels, #2) in Books
Dec 19, 2018
Not quite sure why I decided to read this as the only other book I've read by Gregory was The Other Boleyn Girl, which I thought was pretty dreadful. I suppose I find it difficult to keep away from anything connected with The Wars of the Roses; I certainly found that I'd read almost every book listed in the bibliography and could have recommended a few more that might have been beneficial for the author to have perused.....
While not the worst book I've ever read I know I won't be reading this again and as to The Red Queen - well, I'd probably want to strangle Margaret Beaufort before the first chapter was out, so let's leave it at that shall we.
I do read a lot of historical novels and in general I find that it is much harder for a novel to work well when it is written in the first person, as this is. With a single viewpoint you are restricting yourself and that shows here at several points where the author has to break out of the Elizabeth Woodville narrative to give us a chunk of what is going on elsewhere. I've never found EW a particularly sympathetic historical character and I'm not sure she comes across that well here, either. Certainly in the latter half of the book it's difficult to see what motivation Gregory is ascribing to her.
The family of EW's mother did believe themselves descended from a water goddess and it was not unusual for powerful women to be accused of witchcraft, to discredit either them or their husbands (see Eleanor Cobham). I daresay that mixing of love potions and use of figures and all that sort of thing would have gone on, but the whistling up of storms was going just a bit too far for me. I also thought that the Foreshadowing element of the story was a bit overdone - although that may be because I know too much about the period!
There were also a number of glaring errors and oddities which should have been picked up somewhere down the line. Looks like the favourite one is the anachronistic use of the word 'numpty'! In other places George of Clarence is described as a duke one moment and his wife, Isabel as a countess the next (she would have had that as a subsidiary title, but she was the duchess of Clarence!), an execution was said to have taken place by the axe when the person in question is known to have been hanged, the Parhelion (three suns)are said to have been at Towton when it was in fact at Mortimer's Cross (Towton took place in a snowstorm - I doubt they could see one sun, let alone three!) and Gregory needed to study her history of Barnet a bit more closely as she had her battle lines completely mixed up!
Obviously there are some big gaps in our knowledge, which is grist to the fiction writers mill! I thought her Princes in the Tower solution was interesting and glad to see that she acknowledged that Richard III would have had little to gain from their deaths at this point. Not sure if Lambert Simnel is 'explained' in one of the other books in this series, as EW's part is certainly interesting. Also interesting that although the name of Eleanor Butler is mentioned early on and the anullment of the marriage on grounds of Edward's previous marriage come into play later, the two are never linked by the author and she chooses to offer no comment on this piece of the puzzle.
While not the worst book I've ever read I know I won't be reading this again and as to The Red Queen - well, I'd probably want to strangle Margaret Beaufort before the first chapter was out, so let's leave it at that shall we.
I do read a lot of historical novels and in general I find that it is much harder for a novel to work well when it is written in the first person, as this is. With a single viewpoint you are restricting yourself and that shows here at several points where the author has to break out of the Elizabeth Woodville narrative to give us a chunk of what is going on elsewhere. I've never found EW a particularly sympathetic historical character and I'm not sure she comes across that well here, either. Certainly in the latter half of the book it's difficult to see what motivation Gregory is ascribing to her.
The family of EW's mother did believe themselves descended from a water goddess and it was not unusual for powerful women to be accused of witchcraft, to discredit either them or their husbands (see Eleanor Cobham). I daresay that mixing of love potions and use of figures and all that sort of thing would have gone on, but the whistling up of storms was going just a bit too far for me. I also thought that the Foreshadowing element of the story was a bit overdone - although that may be because I know too much about the period!
There were also a number of glaring errors and oddities which should have been picked up somewhere down the line. Looks like the favourite one is the anachronistic use of the word 'numpty'! In other places George of Clarence is described as a duke one moment and his wife, Isabel as a countess the next (she would have had that as a subsidiary title, but she was the duchess of Clarence!), an execution was said to have taken place by the axe when the person in question is known to have been hanged, the Parhelion (three suns)are said to have been at Towton when it was in fact at Mortimer's Cross (Towton took place in a snowstorm - I doubt they could see one sun, let alone three!) and Gregory needed to study her history of Barnet a bit more closely as she had her battle lines completely mixed up!
Obviously there are some big gaps in our knowledge, which is grist to the fiction writers mill! I thought her Princes in the Tower solution was interesting and glad to see that she acknowledged that Richard III would have had little to gain from their deaths at this point. Not sure if Lambert Simnel is 'explained' in one of the other books in this series, as EW's part is certainly interesting. Also interesting that although the name of Eleanor Butler is mentioned early on and the anullment of the marriage on grounds of Edward's previous marriage come into play later, the two are never linked by the author and she chooses to offer no comment on this piece of the puzzle.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Black Christmas (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
Back in 1974, a low-budget Canadian horror movie by the name of Black Christmas was released and was one of the first to define the slasher movie template that we've now become so heavily accustomed to. Black Christmas already got a remake back in 2006 and now we have another, coming this time from powerhouse movie studio Blumhouse and directed/co-written by Sophia Takal.
Black Christmas retains its campus setting as a group of sorority sisters, all seniors at Hawthorne University, prepare for the end of term and the Christmas holidays. While a group of girls are celebrating one night, one of their friends is being terrorised by a robed killer as she walks home alone down a quiet snowy street, adorned with Christmas decorations. It's all pretty generic stuff so far, and in terms of horror and suspense, that's all we get for about the next 30 minutes or so while the movie shifts down a few gears and tries to introduce us to some characters and some kind of plot.
Riley (Imogen Poots) is one of only a couple of characters who you'll remember come the end of the movie. After passing out at a frat party a few years earlier, Riley was sexually assaulted, and she and her friends are now preparing to sing at another frat party which her accused rapist will also be attending. While looking around the house for a friend who seems to have gone missing, Riley opens the door on a hidden room where she observes a strange ceremony - pledges, wearing medieval robes and masks, are being daubed with some kind of black goo that's oozing from the eyes of a bust depicting the University's founder. She leaves them to it, and heads back to the party, not before rescuing her lost friend from the unwanted advances of another frat boy in his room.
Riley goes on to perform with her friends, a routine which turns out to be a carefully choreographed prank song - worded as a call out to the toxic masculinity and frat rape culture that Riley and so many other girls have experienced first hand. Needless to say, this doesn't go down too well with the boys, even more so when a video of the routine goes viral the next day.
Meanwhile, another one of the sisters is currently in the process of gathering signatures for a petition, in an attempt to get their English professor (Cary Elwes) sacked for not including enough diversity in his curriculum. So, when some of the lesser known female characters begin disappearing, and our main cast begin receiving mysterious and threatening messages on their phones, there are certainly plenty of potential suspects to choose from. Eventually, the killer makes it into the sorority house where Riley and her friends are, and it's up to them all to work together in order to outwit and defeat the killer.
I'm a big fan of the 'final girl' movie, where the seemingly indestructible female lead goes from downtrodden victim to badass warrior (see 'You're Next', or this years hugely enjoyable 'Ready Or Not'), remaining as sole survivor once the dust has settled and the movie comes to its satisfying conclusion. I was really hoping for Black Christmas to follow in that vein, and it's clearly what the filmmakers were aiming for too. But, despite its well-intentioned premise, Black Christmas completely fails to deliver. Death scenes are rushed, not even particularly inventive, and because it is so drearily written and poorly directed, you barely know or even care who most of the victims are anyway. Following a slow and messy first half, the movie then takes a turn towards the supernatural, culminating in a frankly ridiculous final act and cementing this movie firmly in my worst 5 movies of 2019!
Black Christmas retains its campus setting as a group of sorority sisters, all seniors at Hawthorne University, prepare for the end of term and the Christmas holidays. While a group of girls are celebrating one night, one of their friends is being terrorised by a robed killer as she walks home alone down a quiet snowy street, adorned with Christmas decorations. It's all pretty generic stuff so far, and in terms of horror and suspense, that's all we get for about the next 30 minutes or so while the movie shifts down a few gears and tries to introduce us to some characters and some kind of plot.
Riley (Imogen Poots) is one of only a couple of characters who you'll remember come the end of the movie. After passing out at a frat party a few years earlier, Riley was sexually assaulted, and she and her friends are now preparing to sing at another frat party which her accused rapist will also be attending. While looking around the house for a friend who seems to have gone missing, Riley opens the door on a hidden room where she observes a strange ceremony - pledges, wearing medieval robes and masks, are being daubed with some kind of black goo that's oozing from the eyes of a bust depicting the University's founder. She leaves them to it, and heads back to the party, not before rescuing her lost friend from the unwanted advances of another frat boy in his room.
Riley goes on to perform with her friends, a routine which turns out to be a carefully choreographed prank song - worded as a call out to the toxic masculinity and frat rape culture that Riley and so many other girls have experienced first hand. Needless to say, this doesn't go down too well with the boys, even more so when a video of the routine goes viral the next day.
Meanwhile, another one of the sisters is currently in the process of gathering signatures for a petition, in an attempt to get their English professor (Cary Elwes) sacked for not including enough diversity in his curriculum. So, when some of the lesser known female characters begin disappearing, and our main cast begin receiving mysterious and threatening messages on their phones, there are certainly plenty of potential suspects to choose from. Eventually, the killer makes it into the sorority house where Riley and her friends are, and it's up to them all to work together in order to outwit and defeat the killer.
I'm a big fan of the 'final girl' movie, where the seemingly indestructible female lead goes from downtrodden victim to badass warrior (see 'You're Next', or this years hugely enjoyable 'Ready Or Not'), remaining as sole survivor once the dust has settled and the movie comes to its satisfying conclusion. I was really hoping for Black Christmas to follow in that vein, and it's clearly what the filmmakers were aiming for too. But, despite its well-intentioned premise, Black Christmas completely fails to deliver. Death scenes are rushed, not even particularly inventive, and because it is so drearily written and poorly directed, you barely know or even care who most of the victims are anyway. Following a slow and messy first half, the movie then takes a turn towards the supernatural, culminating in a frankly ridiculous final act and cementing this movie firmly in my worst 5 movies of 2019!
