Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Shatter Me in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Lupe and I made a random, out of the blue deal where I read <i>Shatter Me</i> (the entire series), and she finally gets her act together to read the amazingness called <i>Harry Potter</i> (the entire series). <b>She's trekking her way merrily - I've made a fan out of her yet. #SophiaIsProud</b>
<b>Let’s be honest here: she gets the better deal.</b> This trilogy and I will have a strong love/hate relationship that knows no bounds because all I wanted to do was:
<ul>
<li>Throw my iPad at Lupe if she shows herself (not literally)</li>
<li>Hug the book</li>
<li>Die of laughter</li>
<li>Stop torturing myself</li>
<li>Repeat</li>
</ul>
<i>Shatter Me</i> is straight up the alley of everything I will read because a character who kills anything they touch is a golden novel. It’s like King Midas’s curse gone completely wrong.
But unfortunately, it’s my cup of tea with way too much sugar and other weird flavors.
<b>
</b> <b>There is a massive amount of numbers.</b> The first 5-6 chapters had my eyes crying because 1) I really hate numbers, 2) numbers just remind me of math, 3) I don’t like math, 4) it reminds me of Calculus, which went POORLY (AKA failed the final with a giant fish flop) and 5) I think I’m allergic to numbers.
<b>
</b> <b>There is also a lot of strikeouts.</b> Honestly, I can’t complain, because I use strikeouts on my own blog and if I say I hated them I would be contradicting myself. I’ve basically learned that strikeouts take up space and are sometimes unnecessary, which is the case with <i>Shatter Me</i>.
There are fewer numbers and strikeouts as the book progresses, but they remain. My eyes cry less, and I <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">whine</span> complain less about the massive use of numbers to Lupe. Poor Anelise had to witness this (as it is the tragedy of being a coblogger and dealing with two beans who actually know each other personally and outside blogging).
<b>
</b> <b>I don’t care about Adam or Warner.</b> I think Adam is a shallow cheese ball (it might be his romance with Juliette because I cringed every time they’re doing romance things) and Warner is a creepy pervert, so I don’t understand why Lupe swoons over Warner. If he’s still a creepy pervert by book three, I might have to <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">interrogate</span> question Lupe on her fictional boy choices.
<b>
</b> <b>But thanks to Adam, I know about Juliette as a person, so that’s a plus.</b> <b>Does this mean I care about Juliette? No...</b>
If there’s one thing I’ll agree with Lupe on this series, it’s Kenji. He is a precious little bean who deserves so much more page time than he got.
There are a lot of birds. So many birds and no explanation (not even a little). I like metaphors and all, but I still don’t get the concept of a million birds mentioned throughout the book, and Lupe isn’t too helpful. I have to go wallow in misery and torture myself some more.
I’ll be reading the rest of the series for the following reasons:
<ul>
<li>It’s Lupe’s fault</li>
<li>Kenji the precious bean</li>
<li>Why are there so many birds</li>
<li>Mainly it’s just for the sake of Lupe</li>
<li>It brought my reviewing soul back I think</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/shatter-me-by-tahereh-mafi-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<b>Let’s be honest here: she gets the better deal.</b> This trilogy and I will have a strong love/hate relationship that knows no bounds because all I wanted to do was:
<ul>
<li>Throw my iPad at Lupe if she shows herself (not literally)</li>
<li>Hug the book</li>
<li>Die of laughter</li>
<li>Stop torturing myself</li>
<li>Repeat</li>
</ul>
<i>Shatter Me</i> is straight up the alley of everything I will read because a character who kills anything they touch is a golden novel. It’s like King Midas’s curse gone completely wrong.
But unfortunately, it’s my cup of tea with way too much sugar and other weird flavors.
<b>
</b> <b>There is a massive amount of numbers.</b> The first 5-6 chapters had my eyes crying because 1) I really hate numbers, 2) numbers just remind me of math, 3) I don’t like math, 4) it reminds me of Calculus, which went POORLY (AKA failed the final with a giant fish flop) and 5) I think I’m allergic to numbers.
<b>
</b> <b>There is also a lot of strikeouts.</b> Honestly, I can’t complain, because I use strikeouts on my own blog and if I say I hated them I would be contradicting myself. I’ve basically learned that strikeouts take up space and are sometimes unnecessary, which is the case with <i>Shatter Me</i>.
There are fewer numbers and strikeouts as the book progresses, but they remain. My eyes cry less, and I <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">whine</span> complain less about the massive use of numbers to Lupe. Poor Anelise had to witness this (as it is the tragedy of being a coblogger and dealing with two beans who actually know each other personally and outside blogging).
<b>
</b> <b>I don’t care about Adam or Warner.</b> I think Adam is a shallow cheese ball (it might be his romance with Juliette because I cringed every time they’re doing romance things) and Warner is a creepy pervert, so I don’t understand why Lupe swoons over Warner. If he’s still a creepy pervert by book three, I might have to <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">interrogate</span> question Lupe on her fictional boy choices.
<b>
</b> <b>But thanks to Adam, I know about Juliette as a person, so that’s a plus.</b> <b>Does this mean I care about Juliette? No...</b>
If there’s one thing I’ll agree with Lupe on this series, it’s Kenji. He is a precious little bean who deserves so much more page time than he got.
There are a lot of birds. So many birds and no explanation (not even a little). I like metaphors and all, but I still don’t get the concept of a million birds mentioned throughout the book, and Lupe isn’t too helpful. I have to go wallow in misery and torture myself some more.
I’ll be reading the rest of the series for the following reasons:
<ul>
<li>It’s Lupe’s fault</li>
<li>Kenji the precious bean</li>
<li>Why are there so many birds</li>
<li>Mainly it’s just for the sake of Lupe</li>
<li>It brought my reviewing soul back I think</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/shatter-me-by-tahereh-mafi-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Janeeny (200 KP) rated A Deadly Education: Lesson One of the Scholomance in Books
Jun 18, 2021
I received an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
It’s taken me three days to write this review, as I’ve tried to find something clever and witty to say about it when the simple truth is, I like this book and it’s hard to explain why without giving too much away.
It has all the elements you’d expect and enjoy from a fantasy novel, and even though most people I know who enjoy this genre feel it bridges the gap between YA and adult fiction, I should still probably say that the only thing that gives it away that this is a YA book is the teenage protagonist. Novik has gone with the canny technique of a YA voice and theme with an adult backdrop. (I know it’s school but I don’t think even Harry Potter had THIS many near-death experiences)
The protagonist is a girl called El who goes to a special school called The Scholomance. What makes this school so special is the fact that it’s for magically gifted children, it’s held between realities, there are no teachers, the school itself assesses your progress and provides your work accordingly. However, where there are magical beings there are beasties and there are some right nasty ones in this school. Luckily El is constantly rescued by resident hero Orion, which she is especially aggrieved by, considering that El herself is potentially the most dangerous thing in the school.
Oddly enough, one of my favourite aspects of this book was the one thing that most reviewers found annoying about it, and that’s what they’re calling the ‘info-dumping’. There’s a strong feeling amongst the reviews that there is constantly just too much information being thrown at you. In hindsight, I can see their point, and if you’re a fan of Novik and were expecting her usual standard this may be annoying. However, for me as my first foray into her style, I didn’t mind it. In fact, I think it contributed to her world-building and just made me even keener to read the next book. Maybe now that the base is established the next book won’t have so much of it, but it didn’t detract from the story at all for me. I can’t help it, I like information. Sure if a bunch of schoolroom chairs have just come to life and chased after our main characters I want to know how that turns out as quickly as possible, but I do also like to know why.
There is so much going on here, that not only is Novik giving you an entertaining story but it feels like she’s laying the groundwork for what could be (hopefully) an epic new series. El is at times annoying and frustrating, but refreshingly consistent. Orion is the reluctant hero, despite being provided with a bit of background for him he still feels a little 2 dimensional to me, but I hope he’ll be fleshed out a bit more in the next book. They are supported by a range of diverse characters, speaking of which . . .
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the controversy around the book regarding some racist claims. I am by no means qualified to comment on this point, but what I would say is that the issue is a sin of omission rather than intention, and has been addressed by the author. If this is an issue that has you reconsidering adding this to your TBR pile, please do read a broad selection of reviews before making up your mind. As it is a fantastic book and could potentially be my favourite new series
It’s taken me three days to write this review, as I’ve tried to find something clever and witty to say about it when the simple truth is, I like this book and it’s hard to explain why without giving too much away.
It has all the elements you’d expect and enjoy from a fantasy novel, and even though most people I know who enjoy this genre feel it bridges the gap between YA and adult fiction, I should still probably say that the only thing that gives it away that this is a YA book is the teenage protagonist. Novik has gone with the canny technique of a YA voice and theme with an adult backdrop. (I know it’s school but I don’t think even Harry Potter had THIS many near-death experiences)
The protagonist is a girl called El who goes to a special school called The Scholomance. What makes this school so special is the fact that it’s for magically gifted children, it’s held between realities, there are no teachers, the school itself assesses your progress and provides your work accordingly. However, where there are magical beings there are beasties and there are some right nasty ones in this school. Luckily El is constantly rescued by resident hero Orion, which she is especially aggrieved by, considering that El herself is potentially the most dangerous thing in the school.
Oddly enough, one of my favourite aspects of this book was the one thing that most reviewers found annoying about it, and that’s what they’re calling the ‘info-dumping’. There’s a strong feeling amongst the reviews that there is constantly just too much information being thrown at you. In hindsight, I can see their point, and if you’re a fan of Novik and were expecting her usual standard this may be annoying. However, for me as my first foray into her style, I didn’t mind it. In fact, I think it contributed to her world-building and just made me even keener to read the next book. Maybe now that the base is established the next book won’t have so much of it, but it didn’t detract from the story at all for me. I can’t help it, I like information. Sure if a bunch of schoolroom chairs have just come to life and chased after our main characters I want to know how that turns out as quickly as possible, but I do also like to know why.
There is so much going on here, that not only is Novik giving you an entertaining story but it feels like she’s laying the groundwork for what could be (hopefully) an epic new series. El is at times annoying and frustrating, but refreshingly consistent. Orion is the reluctant hero, despite being provided with a bit of background for him he still feels a little 2 dimensional to me, but I hope he’ll be fleshed out a bit more in the next book. They are supported by a range of diverse characters, speaking of which . . .
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the controversy around the book regarding some racist claims. I am by no means qualified to comment on this point, but what I would say is that the issue is a sin of omission rather than intention, and has been addressed by the author. If this is an issue that has you reconsidering adding this to your TBR pile, please do read a broad selection of reviews before making up your mind. As it is a fantastic book and could potentially be my favourite new series
Artemis Director's Viewfinder
Photo & Video and Utilities
App
Artemis Director's Viewfinder reproduces any camera, aspect ratio and lens combination. Included is...
Artemis HD
Photo & Video and Productivity
App
THIS VERSION OF ARTEMIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR IPAD USERS ONLY. FOR THE UNIVERSAL VERSION OF ARTEMIS...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Me Before You (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You are scored on my heart Clark”
“Me Before You” is a bit of a queer fish of a movie. It never quite decides whether it wants to be a romantic weepy, a drama, or a rom-com and as such ends up rather falling between all three stools.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sleep by day…”.
Ben Affleck’s new movie could best be described as “sprawling”. In both directing and writing the screenplay (based on a novel by Dennis Lehane), Affleck has aimed for a “Godfather” style gangster epic and missed: not missed by a country mile, but missed nonetheless.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Twilight Saga has had a tough time in its short screen life. Constant comparisons to Harry Potter and now The Hunger Games have ensured that it has taken a back seat to these franchises. After 3 bitterly disappointing instalments in the series, Breaking Dawn Part 1 which was released last year lifted the bar and promised a fine end to the series. One year later, Part 2 has been released, but can it keep up the momentum set by its predecessor?
The answer, unfortunately is no and as Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Taylor Lautner, (Jacob Black) and Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan) pull the curtains over the long suffering franchise, you can’t help but feel a strange sense of sadness. These films haven’t been as good as they could’ve.
Breaking Dawn Part 2 starts immediately where the last film finished as Bella Swan (Stewart) gives birth to her half-human, half-vampire child. For some bizarre reason, the blood and childbirth elements of the last film have been completely thrown to the wind as Bella awakens as a vampire and is better than ever. Not reminding viewers of what went before was a major oversight on the part of director Bill Condon and those not familiar with the books will have a hard time remembering what happened last year.
It just so happens that Bella and Edward’s daughter Renesmee is growing at an astonishing rate. To show this, the producers have created her with a CGI layering effect which means using a real baby with a CGI face. Unfortunately, this means that Renesmee is the creepiest baby you will have ever had the misfortune to see. Surely there must’ve been some money left over from the $120m budget to create a real treat for fans. As it is, the first time you lay eyes on Renesmee, there is a gasp of horror rather than adoration.
Unfortunately, the sinister Volturi have gotten wind of Renesmee’s existence thanks to a brief cameo by Maggie Grace (Taken 2) as Irina. She mistakenly believes that the child is a pure vampire which is, under no circumstances allowed. Michael Sheen is a highlight as Aro, leader of the Volturi, his camp, unbelievably over the top performance, highlighted perfectly in the film’s finale, is a breath of fresh air against the heavy breathing, downtrodden characterisations from the rest of the cast.
Special effects have never been a strong point for this movie franchise and things really haven’t improved in this latest instalment. We’ve already mentioned the horror of Bella’s demon baby, but the werewolves are pretty bad too and really don’t move the game on at all. In fact, in some sequences it’s like we’re back in the 90s.
It’s not all bad news however; a real highlight for me throughout the course of the films has been the excellent cinematography. The setting is absolutely wonderful, from the snow-capped peaks and plains, to the cliff edges and forests, everything looks fantastic and director Bill Condon really knows how to maximise the environment he has been given to work with.
Unfortunately, no amount of scenery can save a film which, ultimately is a bit of a damp squib. This is more apparent in the finale, which I can honestly say is one of the worst I have ever seen in a film franchise. This is, partly down to Stephenie Meyer’s amateurish writing in the novel, which ensures the final scenes which should’ve been a joy to watch, are completely disregarded and frankly, stupid.
So, there we have it, The Twilight Saga has ended and what a saga it has been. Three average films at best gave way to Breaking Dawn Part 1, which showed promise and could possibly have been the saviour of the franchise. However, the release of Breaking Dawn Part 2 has pushed things back to where it was before the 3rd instalment, Eclipse. The series’ passionate fans have deserved much better and when it should’ve been going out with a bit of bite, instead, we leave Twilight on a bit of a whimper.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/12/03/twilight-breaking-dawn-pt-2-review/
The answer, unfortunately is no and as Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Taylor Lautner, (Jacob Black) and Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan) pull the curtains over the long suffering franchise, you can’t help but feel a strange sense of sadness. These films haven’t been as good as they could’ve.
Breaking Dawn Part 2 starts immediately where the last film finished as Bella Swan (Stewart) gives birth to her half-human, half-vampire child. For some bizarre reason, the blood and childbirth elements of the last film have been completely thrown to the wind as Bella awakens as a vampire and is better than ever. Not reminding viewers of what went before was a major oversight on the part of director Bill Condon and those not familiar with the books will have a hard time remembering what happened last year.
It just so happens that Bella and Edward’s daughter Renesmee is growing at an astonishing rate. To show this, the producers have created her with a CGI layering effect which means using a real baby with a CGI face. Unfortunately, this means that Renesmee is the creepiest baby you will have ever had the misfortune to see. Surely there must’ve been some money left over from the $120m budget to create a real treat for fans. As it is, the first time you lay eyes on Renesmee, there is a gasp of horror rather than adoration.
Unfortunately, the sinister Volturi have gotten wind of Renesmee’s existence thanks to a brief cameo by Maggie Grace (Taken 2) as Irina. She mistakenly believes that the child is a pure vampire which is, under no circumstances allowed. Michael Sheen is a highlight as Aro, leader of the Volturi, his camp, unbelievably over the top performance, highlighted perfectly in the film’s finale, is a breath of fresh air against the heavy breathing, downtrodden characterisations from the rest of the cast.
Special effects have never been a strong point for this movie franchise and things really haven’t improved in this latest instalment. We’ve already mentioned the horror of Bella’s demon baby, but the werewolves are pretty bad too and really don’t move the game on at all. In fact, in some sequences it’s like we’re back in the 90s.
It’s not all bad news however; a real highlight for me throughout the course of the films has been the excellent cinematography. The setting is absolutely wonderful, from the snow-capped peaks and plains, to the cliff edges and forests, everything looks fantastic and director Bill Condon really knows how to maximise the environment he has been given to work with.
Unfortunately, no amount of scenery can save a film which, ultimately is a bit of a damp squib. This is more apparent in the finale, which I can honestly say is one of the worst I have ever seen in a film franchise. This is, partly down to Stephenie Meyer’s amateurish writing in the novel, which ensures the final scenes which should’ve been a joy to watch, are completely disregarded and frankly, stupid.
So, there we have it, The Twilight Saga has ended and what a saga it has been. Three average films at best gave way to Breaking Dawn Part 1, which showed promise and could possibly have been the saviour of the franchise. However, the release of Breaking Dawn Part 2 has pushed things back to where it was before the 3rd instalment, Eclipse. The series’ passionate fans have deserved much better and when it should’ve been going out with a bit of bite, instead, we leave Twilight on a bit of a whimper.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/12/03/twilight-breaking-dawn-pt-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
2013 is the year of the fairy-tale and the year of the witch, or so it looks that way from what seems to be a never-ending bombardment of films related to the two age-old topics. This year sees the release of Bryan Singer’s Jack the Giant Slayer as well as Sam Raimi’s Oz: The Great & the Powerful and whilst the latter has opened to mixed reviews, it is Bryan Singer’s effort which really looks like it’ll sparkle.
Sat between these two behemoths is the critical and somewhat commercial failure, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, but is it as bad as the reviews would have you believe? Let’s find out.
The fairy-tale of Hansel & Gretel is as well-known as Jack & the Beanstalk and to some extent the story in the Wizard of Oz, but films of this classic have been limited to low-budget television movies because finding the audience for such a difficult genre is not to be underestimated.
Here however, Tommy Wirkola directs his first English-language film with some degrees of success, though, a few niggling factors stop it from being the success it could’ve been. In a darker tale than perhaps we’re used to with a story such as this, Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton star as Hansel & Gretel respectively and for the most part, fulfil their roles well as they battle numerous dark witches in a plot which never really gets to grips with the genre it is trying to be.
Herein lays the problem, do you direct the fairy-tale genre as a family comedy or as something a little darker? Clearly director Wirkola has had his work cut out to find the balance between the two and the result is confusing, he has ended up with a 15 certificate which mixes comedy with a bloodbath that wouldn’t look out of place in a Quentin Tarantino picture; it really is that over-the-top. The use of swear-words also feels out of place, like they’re there just to shock rather than add anything to the film’s narrative.
Hansel & Gretel have grown up deciding to kill witches after they were left abandoned in the woods by their father. To cut a long story short, they are captured by a witch and forced to work for her; whilst doing this, Hansel develops ‘sugar sickness’ (diabetes) from all the candy he is forced to consume and must inject himself often. After killing said witch, they flee and the story begins; with them being hired to kill witches who have stolen children from a small town to allow them to become immune to fire; their major weakness.
It’s an interesting take on the story and Famke Janssen plays the wicked grand witch brilliantly, she manages to be both endearing and rightly terrifying in the same scene, though this is helped with the prosthetics used to alter her face. The other actors, including the main two are a little uninspired, especially Arterton who looks positively bored with the work she’s been given. In saying that, Renner isn’t much better and the majority of the film suffers as a result. In fact, you’ll probably be rooting for Janssen’s Muriel to succeed in her evil plot.
Thankfully, the special effects are very good, although I was expecting a little more witch-on-witch action, a la Harry Potter. Atli Orvarsson’s score is excellent and a real highlight of the film. The music in the brilliant opening credits is fantastic.
Overall, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a solid but uninspiring adaptation of a fairy-tale which was never meant for the big screen. Director Tommy Wirkola has obviously tried very hard to create a film which caters for most palates and whilst the score, special effects and acting from Famke Janssen are all top notch, the confusing mish-mash of genres and hammy acting from Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton stop it being anything more than a forgettable action flick. After all, when your lead characters look like they can’t be bothered, you’ve got a serious problem.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/03/02/hansel-gretel-witch-hunters-review-2013/
Sat between these two behemoths is the critical and somewhat commercial failure, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, but is it as bad as the reviews would have you believe? Let’s find out.
The fairy-tale of Hansel & Gretel is as well-known as Jack & the Beanstalk and to some extent the story in the Wizard of Oz, but films of this classic have been limited to low-budget television movies because finding the audience for such a difficult genre is not to be underestimated.
Here however, Tommy Wirkola directs his first English-language film with some degrees of success, though, a few niggling factors stop it from being the success it could’ve been. In a darker tale than perhaps we’re used to with a story such as this, Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton star as Hansel & Gretel respectively and for the most part, fulfil their roles well as they battle numerous dark witches in a plot which never really gets to grips with the genre it is trying to be.
Herein lays the problem, do you direct the fairy-tale genre as a family comedy or as something a little darker? Clearly director Wirkola has had his work cut out to find the balance between the two and the result is confusing, he has ended up with a 15 certificate which mixes comedy with a bloodbath that wouldn’t look out of place in a Quentin Tarantino picture; it really is that over-the-top. The use of swear-words also feels out of place, like they’re there just to shock rather than add anything to the film’s narrative.
Hansel & Gretel have grown up deciding to kill witches after they were left abandoned in the woods by their father. To cut a long story short, they are captured by a witch and forced to work for her; whilst doing this, Hansel develops ‘sugar sickness’ (diabetes) from all the candy he is forced to consume and must inject himself often. After killing said witch, they flee and the story begins; with them being hired to kill witches who have stolen children from a small town to allow them to become immune to fire; their major weakness.
It’s an interesting take on the story and Famke Janssen plays the wicked grand witch brilliantly, she manages to be both endearing and rightly terrifying in the same scene, though this is helped with the prosthetics used to alter her face. The other actors, including the main two are a little uninspired, especially Arterton who looks positively bored with the work she’s been given. In saying that, Renner isn’t much better and the majority of the film suffers as a result. In fact, you’ll probably be rooting for Janssen’s Muriel to succeed in her evil plot.
Thankfully, the special effects are very good, although I was expecting a little more witch-on-witch action, a la Harry Potter. Atli Orvarsson’s score is excellent and a real highlight of the film. The music in the brilliant opening credits is fantastic.
Overall, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a solid but uninspiring adaptation of a fairy-tale which was never meant for the big screen. Director Tommy Wirkola has obviously tried very hard to create a film which caters for most palates and whilst the score, special effects and acting from Famke Janssen are all top notch, the confusing mish-mash of genres and hammy acting from Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton stop it being anything more than a forgettable action flick. After all, when your lead characters look like they can’t be bothered, you’ve got a serious problem.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/03/02/hansel-gretel-witch-hunters-review-2013/