Search
Debbiereadsbook (1166 KP) rated Unlikely Hero (AUDIO) in Books
May 14, 2018
excellent narration of a great book!
Independent reviewer for Divine Magazine, I was gifted the audio version of this book.
Brock never got over Eric leaving him, but he understood why Eric needed to go. When Eric calls, 9 years later, Brock drops everything and calls upon his considerable resources to find Eric's 3 year old daughter , who has been kidnapped. But having Eric and Josie under his roof, to keep them safe, has Brock thinking about all the things he missed out on.
I loved this!!
Brock loved Eric, never stopped so of course he's gonna help him find his daughter! I loved that, right from Eric turning up at his office, Brock is calling him baby. I don;'t usually, so it surprised me here that I did love it! I think it surprised Brock too, the first time he did it!
Brock makes no apologies for his wealth and power and he pulls no punches in using both to keep Eric and Josie safe, and in finding out who is doing this.
But we don't get Eric, at all. This is told entirely from Brock's POV in the third person. And I really REALLY needed to hear from Eric at key points along the way: when Josie is first discovered gone; when he walks into Brock's office and when he finds out just who is behind it all. This is the only reason I gave the book 4 stars, because Eric is not given a voice, and he needed one.
I loved the supporting cast, especially Max and Gordon. They have a tale to tell, not least because of what goes down here!
Jeff Gelder narrates. This is the first, as far as I can see, that I have listened to of his work and I was very impressed. His reading voice is deep and even, and his voices consistent and easily identifiable in multi person conversations. Loved his voice for Josie, who sounded just like a 3 year old should, with all the funny things they say. Gelder gets over all of Brock's emotions in all the right places.
I cannot fault the narration. Gelder is firmly on my to listen list!
4 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration.
4.5 (rounded down to 4) overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Brock never got over Eric leaving him, but he understood why Eric needed to go. When Eric calls, 9 years later, Brock drops everything and calls upon his considerable resources to find Eric's 3 year old daughter , who has been kidnapped. But having Eric and Josie under his roof, to keep them safe, has Brock thinking about all the things he missed out on.
I loved this!!
Brock loved Eric, never stopped so of course he's gonna help him find his daughter! I loved that, right from Eric turning up at his office, Brock is calling him baby. I don;'t usually, so it surprised me here that I did love it! I think it surprised Brock too, the first time he did it!
Brock makes no apologies for his wealth and power and he pulls no punches in using both to keep Eric and Josie safe, and in finding out who is doing this.
But we don't get Eric, at all. This is told entirely from Brock's POV in the third person. And I really REALLY needed to hear from Eric at key points along the way: when Josie is first discovered gone; when he walks into Brock's office and when he finds out just who is behind it all. This is the only reason I gave the book 4 stars, because Eric is not given a voice, and he needed one.
I loved the supporting cast, especially Max and Gordon. They have a tale to tell, not least because of what goes down here!
Jeff Gelder narrates. This is the first, as far as I can see, that I have listened to of his work and I was very impressed. His reading voice is deep and even, and his voices consistent and easily identifiable in multi person conversations. Loved his voice for Josie, who sounded just like a 3 year old should, with all the funny things they say. Gelder gets over all of Brock's emotions in all the right places.
I cannot fault the narration. Gelder is firmly on my to listen list!
4 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration.
4.5 (rounded down to 4) overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
BookwormLea (3034 KP) rated Greenland (2020) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Predictable but entertaining.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I love disaster films. 2012, Day After Tomorrow, San Andreas, I can't get enough. So of course I had to watch this film. Gérard Butler? Yes please!
The thing I liked about this one in particular was how believable it was. Of course in a global disaster, governments weren't going to save everyone. Of course they are going to pick the strongest most useful bunch. And obviously they would turn away the sick because why save someone who could die in a week when you could save a healthy teen that was probably going to solve world hunger? I also liked that they added the kidnapping. Not going to lie, if it was my one shot at survival, I would probably try too.
Now what I didnt love. If you know your husband has gone to the car, and would more than likely go back to the car if he found out you had left. Stay at the car!!! If you also know you are very likely to end up at the same destination, does it really matter that he's not on your plane? Its all her fault they got kicked out the facility. Its also his fault the plane got blew up and everyone had lost their chance. Also if one random guy knew there was a plane in Canada going to the bunker, how did nobody else know? And also, everyone knew if you had a wristband, you had a code. Of course you couldn't steal someone elses...
And then towards the end when they had wormed their way to the safety of the Canadian plane, I said to my sister 'I bet they get there, and even though they shouldn't they are let in, and in probably 6 weeks or soemthing, they will open the doors and a bird will fly past or soemthing and everything is happy.' Low and behold, I was right about everything except the time. They spent 9 month in a bunker they didn't think they would use? Yeah right.
But overall, an okay film. I am just really good at guessing movie twists and endings!
The thing I liked about this one in particular was how believable it was. Of course in a global disaster, governments weren't going to save everyone. Of course they are going to pick the strongest most useful bunch. And obviously they would turn away the sick because why save someone who could die in a week when you could save a healthy teen that was probably going to solve world hunger? I also liked that they added the kidnapping. Not going to lie, if it was my one shot at survival, I would probably try too.
Now what I didnt love. If you know your husband has gone to the car, and would more than likely go back to the car if he found out you had left. Stay at the car!!! If you also know you are very likely to end up at the same destination, does it really matter that he's not on your plane? Its all her fault they got kicked out the facility. Its also his fault the plane got blew up and everyone had lost their chance. Also if one random guy knew there was a plane in Canada going to the bunker, how did nobody else know? And also, everyone knew if you had a wristband, you had a code. Of course you couldn't steal someone elses...
And then towards the end when they had wormed their way to the safety of the Canadian plane, I said to my sister 'I bet they get there, and even though they shouldn't they are let in, and in probably 6 weeks or soemthing, they will open the doors and a bird will fly past or soemthing and everything is happy.' Low and behold, I was right about everything except the time. They spent 9 month in a bunker they didn't think they would use? Yeah right.
But overall, an okay film. I am just really good at guessing movie twists and endings!
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children in Books
Jun 7, 2018
This review can also be found on my blog <a href="themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
I feel the synopsis of what the book is about makes it sound a lot better than what it is. I wanted to like this book, I really did. I had high hopes for it. Unfortunately, it didn't do much for me. I was expecting more of a ghost story. Instead I got more of a sci-fi story, and one that wasn't very good.
Jacob's grandfather tells him of a magical island of which he spent his childhood. He shows him photos and tells him stories about the peculiar children he grew up with. As Jacob becomes a teenager, he stops believing in his grandfather's ridiculous stories until something awful happens. Jacob travels to the mysterious island to find out about his grandfather. Little does he know that by going to that island he's put himself and many others in danger.
First off, I thought the word building/setting were fantastic. The author made me feel as if I was on the island. I'll give him props there. The description of the world was beautifully described.
I couldn't relate very much to the characters. I can't really place why that is. I just couldn't connect. I found myself not caring what happened to any of them. Perhaps the author should've spent a bit more time character building to make me relate to at least one the characters. The characters just felt a bit one dimensional. There wasn't even one that I could remotely say that I favourited. Okay, that's a lie. I liked Fiona, the Irish girl, but I only liked her because she was Irish, and I love all things Irish. That's it.
I found the pacing to be a bit slow. I'd read a chapter, then I'd get bored with it and go off to do something else. I really struggled with this book. There are a couple of chapters that the pacing is great in, but it's not until the last two chapters that the pacing definitely picks up.
The dialogue was easy to understand although some Americans may not get all the slang British terms. There was one scene where a character says "I was taking a piss" where he meant that he was joking around. The phrase he meant was "taking the piss" which is a British slang phrase for joking. "Taking a piss" isn't a typo either as it's mentioned a few more times. This annoyed me because taking a piss, is just that, it means urinating. "Taking the piss" means to be joking around. Other than that, the dialogue was good.
The best part of the book was the photographs found within the book. I loved that little touch! I found myself studying the photos and enjoying them a million times better than the actual book.
The cover is also something I loved about the book. How freaky does that little girl look??? The German cover looks even better. It's the same photo, just with a green hue. If I was marking the book based on the cover alone, it'd get 5 out of 5 for me.
The title of the book doesn't really leave anything to make you wonder what the books about. It says exactly what the book is about - a home for peculiar children.
All in all, this book left me feeling empty. I didn't really feel much of anything reading it until I got to the last two chapters where it got exciting. However, I will not put myself through the torture of reading the second book in the series especially as I don't care about the characters or what happens to them. I'm just glad I won this book in a competition and didn't buy it.
I was going to give this book a 2 - 2.5 star rating but the ending saved it a bit.
I feel the synopsis of what the book is about makes it sound a lot better than what it is. I wanted to like this book, I really did. I had high hopes for it. Unfortunately, it didn't do much for me. I was expecting more of a ghost story. Instead I got more of a sci-fi story, and one that wasn't very good.
Jacob's grandfather tells him of a magical island of which he spent his childhood. He shows him photos and tells him stories about the peculiar children he grew up with. As Jacob becomes a teenager, he stops believing in his grandfather's ridiculous stories until something awful happens. Jacob travels to the mysterious island to find out about his grandfather. Little does he know that by going to that island he's put himself and many others in danger.
First off, I thought the word building/setting were fantastic. The author made me feel as if I was on the island. I'll give him props there. The description of the world was beautifully described.
I couldn't relate very much to the characters. I can't really place why that is. I just couldn't connect. I found myself not caring what happened to any of them. Perhaps the author should've spent a bit more time character building to make me relate to at least one the characters. The characters just felt a bit one dimensional. There wasn't even one that I could remotely say that I favourited. Okay, that's a lie. I liked Fiona, the Irish girl, but I only liked her because she was Irish, and I love all things Irish. That's it.
I found the pacing to be a bit slow. I'd read a chapter, then I'd get bored with it and go off to do something else. I really struggled with this book. There are a couple of chapters that the pacing is great in, but it's not until the last two chapters that the pacing definitely picks up.
The dialogue was easy to understand although some Americans may not get all the slang British terms. There was one scene where a character says "I was taking a piss" where he meant that he was joking around. The phrase he meant was "taking the piss" which is a British slang phrase for joking. "Taking a piss" isn't a typo either as it's mentioned a few more times. This annoyed me because taking a piss, is just that, it means urinating. "Taking the piss" means to be joking around. Other than that, the dialogue was good.
The best part of the book was the photographs found within the book. I loved that little touch! I found myself studying the photos and enjoying them a million times better than the actual book.
The cover is also something I loved about the book. How freaky does that little girl look??? The German cover looks even better. It's the same photo, just with a green hue. If I was marking the book based on the cover alone, it'd get 5 out of 5 for me.
The title of the book doesn't really leave anything to make you wonder what the books about. It says exactly what the book is about - a home for peculiar children.
All in all, this book left me feeling empty. I didn't really feel much of anything reading it until I got to the last two chapters where it got exciting. However, I will not put myself through the torture of reading the second book in the series especially as I don't care about the characters or what happens to them. I'm just glad I won this book in a competition and didn't buy it.
I was going to give this book a 2 - 2.5 star rating but the ending saved it a bit.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Color Out of Space (2019) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020
You had me at Nicolas Cage.
The Gardners are settling into the secluded family home nicely, no city hustle and bustle to bother them. That peaceful life is shattered when a curious meteorite crashes into their garden. Far from a normal bit of space debris, the rock seems to be changing everything around it. It's taking over, the plants, pace and time, even the family themselves.
Briefly hearing Richard Stanley before this screening made me feel this adaptation of Lovecraft's work of the same name was in good hands, he clearly has an appreciation for what he's was working on and the imagery he creates makes for incredible viewing.
So, straight to Nic Cage... he doesn't quite go full Cage, but he's pretty close. It's the usual insanity we've all come to love.
This film is a little crazy on many levels, the family as a whole are very off before we even get to the magical meteorite. Each member seemingly has their own little corner of crazy town mapped out, and yet when you look at them as a whole you'd wouldn't put them in the same family.
As the film progresses and things get even more bizarre the family feel even less connected than at the beginning. The alien influence is pushing them further apart, but on top of that the script falls away in the middle and chaotic devolving of sanity replaces it. Each member of the family has their own experience with the meteorite, apart from chaos and the underlying cause none of it feels connected.
To say it plainly, there's some really messed up stuff. I would love to see how some of it was achieved because if Richardson is doing half the things it appears she is then she deserves some kind of award. I've got the short story to read so I can compare the two because honestly I can't visualise the written version of this story.
The creatures that evolve are made to be terrifying, and they do scare, but the comedy moments that come through from the performances (mostly unintentionally I guess) detract from it being all that shocking.
Our meteorite has a great influence over the sets for most of the movie, the colours and the growth are used to good effect. The progression is clear and well balanced, it might not always look realistic but the fact that that's the point helps.
When you look at Color Out Of Space as a whole it's all over the place, interesting but ambling, understandable and confusing. Despite that, it's an experience that I enjoyed having.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/color-out-of-space-movie-review.html
The Gardners are settling into the secluded family home nicely, no city hustle and bustle to bother them. That peaceful life is shattered when a curious meteorite crashes into their garden. Far from a normal bit of space debris, the rock seems to be changing everything around it. It's taking over, the plants, pace and time, even the family themselves.
Briefly hearing Richard Stanley before this screening made me feel this adaptation of Lovecraft's work of the same name was in good hands, he clearly has an appreciation for what he's was working on and the imagery he creates makes for incredible viewing.
So, straight to Nic Cage... he doesn't quite go full Cage, but he's pretty close. It's the usual insanity we've all come to love.
This film is a little crazy on many levels, the family as a whole are very off before we even get to the magical meteorite. Each member seemingly has their own little corner of crazy town mapped out, and yet when you look at them as a whole you'd wouldn't put them in the same family.
As the film progresses and things get even more bizarre the family feel even less connected than at the beginning. The alien influence is pushing them further apart, but on top of that the script falls away in the middle and chaotic devolving of sanity replaces it. Each member of the family has their own experience with the meteorite, apart from chaos and the underlying cause none of it feels connected.
To say it plainly, there's some really messed up stuff. I would love to see how some of it was achieved because if Richardson is doing half the things it appears she is then she deserves some kind of award. I've got the short story to read so I can compare the two because honestly I can't visualise the written version of this story.
The creatures that evolve are made to be terrifying, and they do scare, but the comedy moments that come through from the performances (mostly unintentionally I guess) detract from it being all that shocking.
Our meteorite has a great influence over the sets for most of the movie, the colours and the growth are used to good effect. The progression is clear and well balanced, it might not always look realistic but the fact that that's the point helps.
When you look at Color Out Of Space as a whole it's all over the place, interesting but ambling, understandable and confusing. Despite that, it's an experience that I enjoyed having.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/color-out-of-space-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Trauma Centre (2019) in Movies
Jun 9, 2020
Many moons ago I said to myself that I shouldn't watch films with big stars in if I'd never heard of them before they become available to buy, Steven Seagal was the reason for this rule in the beginning... when and why did I ever forsake that idea?
After witnessing a crime Madison ends up in hospital recovering from injuries she sustained in the incident. What she doesn't realise is that she's hiding evidence that will lead straight to her attackers. Her only chance is a cop assigned to watch her and her own wits.
I picked this up on Prime as the rental for members was only £1.99, that seems like a bargain... I can't say I was convinced after I finished it.
Trauma Centre is a very basic crime thriller, it doesn't ever stray into anything out of the ordinary. If it wasn't for the fact this was a new release I'd have said I'd seen it before and just forgotten all about it.
Nicky Whelan is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to the acting, but I think that's mainly because she gets to act manic and terrorised for most of it and that gave her the ability to act her way out of poor scripting.
We've also got Steve Guttenberg playing the doctor and it was nice to see him in something new. I loved so many of his films when I was growing up so this felt almost nostalgic... but it's an odd character and thankfully he doesn't pop up in a lot of scenes.
And then there's Brucey. I've watched a lot of Bruce Willis films and while some of them aren't great they've never really been bad. Dubious, yes. Bad, no. Saying Willis' performance was lazy may be being generous. There's no energy in the role at all and every scene looks like he's just woken up from a nap and isn't really sure where he is. This should have been an easily doable role for "classic" Willis with minimal effort.
Everything in the film left me kind of blanks. As I mentioned at the beginning, this film could have been any of several you've already seen. With just a small amount of effort (mainly with the script and the acting) this could have been a watchable 3.5 starred action film, but as it is there's little enjoyment to be had.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trauma-centre-movie-review.html
After witnessing a crime Madison ends up in hospital recovering from injuries she sustained in the incident. What she doesn't realise is that she's hiding evidence that will lead straight to her attackers. Her only chance is a cop assigned to watch her and her own wits.
I picked this up on Prime as the rental for members was only £1.99, that seems like a bargain... I can't say I was convinced after I finished it.
Trauma Centre is a very basic crime thriller, it doesn't ever stray into anything out of the ordinary. If it wasn't for the fact this was a new release I'd have said I'd seen it before and just forgotten all about it.
Nicky Whelan is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to the acting, but I think that's mainly because she gets to act manic and terrorised for most of it and that gave her the ability to act her way out of poor scripting.
We've also got Steve Guttenberg playing the doctor and it was nice to see him in something new. I loved so many of his films when I was growing up so this felt almost nostalgic... but it's an odd character and thankfully he doesn't pop up in a lot of scenes.
And then there's Brucey. I've watched a lot of Bruce Willis films and while some of them aren't great they've never really been bad. Dubious, yes. Bad, no. Saying Willis' performance was lazy may be being generous. There's no energy in the role at all and every scene looks like he's just woken up from a nap and isn't really sure where he is. This should have been an easily doable role for "classic" Willis with minimal effort.
Everything in the film left me kind of blanks. As I mentioned at the beginning, this film could have been any of several you've already seen. With just a small amount of effort (mainly with the script and the acting) this could have been a watchable 3.5 starred action film, but as it is there's little enjoyment to be had.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trauma-centre-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 13, 2020
Disney: "We're making a film of Artemis Fowl!"
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Like many others, I've been pretty much sold on The Batman since the first trailer dropped, to the point where I was worried that my own hype would leave me disappointed. Luckily that's not the case. Matt Reeves has crafted the definitive live action Batman experience.
The character himself has gone through many iterations over the years, and most of them come with their own merits, but he works aesthetically and thematically better at the darker end of the spectrum. This Batman is certainly that. The narrative takes place wholeheartedly in the criminal underbelly of Gotham, bathing in it's corruption. It's noir-thriller construction compliments the setting perfectly, presenting a slow burning crime piece, with occasional bursts of action, that never feels boring over its near 3 hour runtime.
Pattinsons take on the character could be the very best yet. Through projects such as The Lighthouse and Tenet, he's proven that he has the chops for this kind of thing, and he nails it without a doubt. I was pleasantly surprised by how much on screen Batman we got. He's under the cowl more often than not, and it's an understandable direction to take considering how great the suit looks alongside the general aesthetic of the film. Paul Dano's Riddler is a worthy foe as well. This villain is portrayed as unhinged and dangerous from the get go, a person who is angry and upset with the world, and who has the capacity to bring Gotham to its knees. His master plan is wonderful to watch unfold. Dano is golden in anything he appears in, and my only real complaint about The Batman is that we didn't get more of him.
Colin Farrell, Zoe Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, and John Turturro are all fantastic supports. It's a well rounded cast, playing well written characters.
The direction and cinematography on display is some of the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie. Reeves has a great eye, from Cloverfield to his Planet of the Apes entries, he has a certain brand of cinema magic that suits Gotham down to the ground. Throw Greig Fraser into the mix, fresh from his outstanding work with Dune, and you have a pretty solid pairing that results in a breathtaking, visual feast, all backed up by a phenomenal music score, from the ever reliable Michael Giacchino.
I can't heap enough praise onto The Batman, a patient, unforgiving, enthralling, and bleak comic adaption that sits at the top of the pile that is deserving of its glowing reviews.
The character himself has gone through many iterations over the years, and most of them come with their own merits, but he works aesthetically and thematically better at the darker end of the spectrum. This Batman is certainly that. The narrative takes place wholeheartedly in the criminal underbelly of Gotham, bathing in it's corruption. It's noir-thriller construction compliments the setting perfectly, presenting a slow burning crime piece, with occasional bursts of action, that never feels boring over its near 3 hour runtime.
Pattinsons take on the character could be the very best yet. Through projects such as The Lighthouse and Tenet, he's proven that he has the chops for this kind of thing, and he nails it without a doubt. I was pleasantly surprised by how much on screen Batman we got. He's under the cowl more often than not, and it's an understandable direction to take considering how great the suit looks alongside the general aesthetic of the film. Paul Dano's Riddler is a worthy foe as well. This villain is portrayed as unhinged and dangerous from the get go, a person who is angry and upset with the world, and who has the capacity to bring Gotham to its knees. His master plan is wonderful to watch unfold. Dano is golden in anything he appears in, and my only real complaint about The Batman is that we didn't get more of him.
Colin Farrell, Zoe Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, and John Turturro are all fantastic supports. It's a well rounded cast, playing well written characters.
The direction and cinematography on display is some of the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie. Reeves has a great eye, from Cloverfield to his Planet of the Apes entries, he has a certain brand of cinema magic that suits Gotham down to the ground. Throw Greig Fraser into the mix, fresh from his outstanding work with Dune, and you have a pretty solid pairing that results in a breathtaking, visual feast, all backed up by a phenomenal music score, from the ever reliable Michael Giacchino.
I can't heap enough praise onto The Batman, a patient, unforgiving, enthralling, and bleak comic adaption that sits at the top of the pile that is deserving of its glowing reviews.
False Pretences
Book
This title features M5 (30s, 40s, 50), F2 (30s). A living-room. Fee code M. Estate agent Kevin and...
