Search
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Wings (Wings, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
This book had some good, some bad, some supremacy, some mediocrity. here's my warning now, that this has spoilers in it.
good: a wild twist. the idea that fairy's are plants never once crossed my mind, the idea that Laurel had flowers growing out of her back instead of actual wings was... kinda weird but also really cool. and in my opinion, the good over-weighed the bad.
bad: i remember very vividly that the boy she falls in love with is introduced in the first paragraph (or second, or something like that.) and that totally gave away that part of the plot. i knew right away she'd become involved with him. i would have liked the author to develop his character a little more, or develop Laurel's character a little more, before introducing him.
supremacy: it had me hooked from about the fifth chapter to the twenty-second. i literally read for five hours. that's a long time for me. i mean, i read A LOT and ALL THE TIME, but five hours at once? seriously. the only other times that's ever happened was for twilight and harry potter. very nice, Aprilynne.
mediocrity: the writing itself, the prose, the sentence structure, was not all that fabulous. it was just basic sentence structure most of the time, and ok vocabulary. the words themselves were not poetic and artful, something that you find in Edger Allen Poe or J K Rowling.
the last thing was the end. it left you hanging, a little. which, as a writer, is a smart and mean thing to do at the same time. i'm a writer, and in every single one of my books i leave my audience hanging. but as a reader, it's annoying. i the one thing i want to know is what happens about her and the boy thing? who does she end up with? i'll bet that the boy she met at school ends up with the girl who's had a crush on him forever, and she goes back to her fairy-boy. (can you tell i've forgotten some names and don't have the book with me?) whatever. but i hope there's a second one, because that one little thing will bug me from now until whenever the new one comes out (if there is one.)
of course, again, the book was addictive, and had a great twist. i will say that if i ever had a chance to read it again, i would probably not do it. but i will (if there is one) read the sequel. all in all, i did like this book. quite a lot. and i do recommend it to anyone who likes romance, fantasy, or adventure.
good: a wild twist. the idea that fairy's are plants never once crossed my mind, the idea that Laurel had flowers growing out of her back instead of actual wings was... kinda weird but also really cool. and in my opinion, the good over-weighed the bad.
bad: i remember very vividly that the boy she falls in love with is introduced in the first paragraph (or second, or something like that.) and that totally gave away that part of the plot. i knew right away she'd become involved with him. i would have liked the author to develop his character a little more, or develop Laurel's character a little more, before introducing him.
supremacy: it had me hooked from about the fifth chapter to the twenty-second. i literally read for five hours. that's a long time for me. i mean, i read A LOT and ALL THE TIME, but five hours at once? seriously. the only other times that's ever happened was for twilight and harry potter. very nice, Aprilynne.
mediocrity: the writing itself, the prose, the sentence structure, was not all that fabulous. it was just basic sentence structure most of the time, and ok vocabulary. the words themselves were not poetic and artful, something that you find in Edger Allen Poe or J K Rowling.
the last thing was the end. it left you hanging, a little. which, as a writer, is a smart and mean thing to do at the same time. i'm a writer, and in every single one of my books i leave my audience hanging. but as a reader, it's annoying. i the one thing i want to know is what happens about her and the boy thing? who does she end up with? i'll bet that the boy she met at school ends up with the girl who's had a crush on him forever, and she goes back to her fairy-boy. (can you tell i've forgotten some names and don't have the book with me?) whatever. but i hope there's a second one, because that one little thing will bug me from now until whenever the new one comes out (if there is one.)
of course, again, the book was addictive, and had a great twist. i will say that if i ever had a chance to read it again, i would probably not do it. but i will (if there is one) read the sequel. all in all, i did like this book. quite a lot. and i do recommend it to anyone who likes romance, fantasy, or adventure.
Crowntakers - The Ultimate Strategy RPG
Games
App
Dark times are imminent: the king’s abduction throws a once peaceful land into turmoil. Being the...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
To say I found this hard to watch could not be more understated. Any adult that has risked their whole life on a true love that runs its course and then fails must surely feel the same. It happens to most of us once or twice in a lifetime, and resonates forever. Such is the level of truth and sadness on display in Noah Baumbach’s beautifully written and directed tale of two people in turmoil, whose biggest obstacle is not one another, but the dispassion and ineffectiveness of legality, and even friends and family, to resolve big issues of a personal nature.
As with the obvious reference point of the seminal take on divorce, Robert Benton’s 1979 Oscar winner Kramer Vs. Kramer, the point is not at all about taking sides and choosing a winner… because everyone loses in a break-up. The only thing you can hope is that it doesn’t tear the child / children apart, and that at least some memory of the love that once was isn’t entirely forgotten. You also hope that you will survive, once you realise you are not part of a whole any more, and you must now figure out who you are and where to go. Even the grief of death is sometimes not as devastating. And this beyond mature film acknowledges that.
Not that it is all doom and gloom. There is some real humour and joy wrapped up inside the detail of Marriage Story’s script. As you would expect from the guy who gave us the massively under-rated The Squid and the Whale, from 2005. It assumes an emotional intelligence similar to the best films of Woody Allen, with which he clearly shares some sense of creative style and sensibility. But let’s not open that can of worms at this juncture.
The idea that Scarlett Johansson can even be thought of as a double Oscar nominee this year may be galling to some naysayers, but it comes as no surprise to me at all. Despite a career touching on the lighter side of cinema, there are some bold artistic choices in there too, and personally I have always seen that potential. As Nicole, she not only creates a fully rounded character different from anything I have ever seen her do; believable and interesting in every way, but also holds her own against one of the major talents working in film today – Mr Adam Driver. And that is no mean feat! Another balance comparison that can be made to the epic battle of Streep Vs Hoffman, decades before. And as with Streep before her, there are moments where we entirely see her side of things and stop questioning male vs female politics and just see the person battling underneath it all.
However, and not remotely because I am likely to relate to the male point of view, the work Adam Driver is doing here is close to transcendent! I have made no secret of wanting Joaquin Phoenix to win every accolade going for his turn in Joker. And what a shame the two have to be compared, because Driver’s work here is second to none! I find it so completely exciting for the future of cinema that he is out there doing his thing – evidently, it is about as breath-taking as screen acting has ever been!
It is not only his ability to convey vulnerability and humanity in every role he takes on; it his control that really impresses. To such an extent that I begin to wonder if there is anything he could not do better than 99% of anyone working today, if well cast. Make no mistake, at any level, this is one of hell of a talent, making the right choices in the roles he does at almost every crossroads. Consider the latest Star Wars trilogy without him, and ponder what weak popcorn fare it might have been without him?
Marriage Story as a complete piece is worthy of dissection and multiple re-watches. I am happy to say that, only hours after seeing it myself. There simply isn’t a doubt. As a serious commentary on break-ups then it may be, at the moment, tertiary in my mind to both the aforementioned Kramer Vs Kramer and the sickeningly sad Blue Valentine. But, it is perhaps more real than either of those, and will certainly build in my psyche as time passes.
In conclusion: Yes! I have no inclination to fault it. And may have more to say at a different point…
As with the obvious reference point of the seminal take on divorce, Robert Benton’s 1979 Oscar winner Kramer Vs. Kramer, the point is not at all about taking sides and choosing a winner… because everyone loses in a break-up. The only thing you can hope is that it doesn’t tear the child / children apart, and that at least some memory of the love that once was isn’t entirely forgotten. You also hope that you will survive, once you realise you are not part of a whole any more, and you must now figure out who you are and where to go. Even the grief of death is sometimes not as devastating. And this beyond mature film acknowledges that.
Not that it is all doom and gloom. There is some real humour and joy wrapped up inside the detail of Marriage Story’s script. As you would expect from the guy who gave us the massively under-rated The Squid and the Whale, from 2005. It assumes an emotional intelligence similar to the best films of Woody Allen, with which he clearly shares some sense of creative style and sensibility. But let’s not open that can of worms at this juncture.
The idea that Scarlett Johansson can even be thought of as a double Oscar nominee this year may be galling to some naysayers, but it comes as no surprise to me at all. Despite a career touching on the lighter side of cinema, there are some bold artistic choices in there too, and personally I have always seen that potential. As Nicole, she not only creates a fully rounded character different from anything I have ever seen her do; believable and interesting in every way, but also holds her own against one of the major talents working in film today – Mr Adam Driver. And that is no mean feat! Another balance comparison that can be made to the epic battle of Streep Vs Hoffman, decades before. And as with Streep before her, there are moments where we entirely see her side of things and stop questioning male vs female politics and just see the person battling underneath it all.
However, and not remotely because I am likely to relate to the male point of view, the work Adam Driver is doing here is close to transcendent! I have made no secret of wanting Joaquin Phoenix to win every accolade going for his turn in Joker. And what a shame the two have to be compared, because Driver’s work here is second to none! I find it so completely exciting for the future of cinema that he is out there doing his thing – evidently, it is about as breath-taking as screen acting has ever been!
It is not only his ability to convey vulnerability and humanity in every role he takes on; it his control that really impresses. To such an extent that I begin to wonder if there is anything he could not do better than 99% of anyone working today, if well cast. Make no mistake, at any level, this is one of hell of a talent, making the right choices in the roles he does at almost every crossroads. Consider the latest Star Wars trilogy without him, and ponder what weak popcorn fare it might have been without him?
Marriage Story as a complete piece is worthy of dissection and multiple re-watches. I am happy to say that, only hours after seeing it myself. There simply isn’t a doubt. As a serious commentary on break-ups then it may be, at the moment, tertiary in my mind to both the aforementioned Kramer Vs Kramer and the sickeningly sad Blue Valentine. But, it is perhaps more real than either of those, and will certainly build in my psyche as time passes.
In conclusion: Yes! I have no inclination to fault it. And may have more to say at a different point…
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Grind in Books
Jun 12, 2019
First of all, can we appreciate how cool this cover is? It’s makes me want to drink so much tea and coffee. When Edward Vukovic offered me a free print copy in exchange for an honest review, I couldn’t pass it up, even though it’s a bit darker than the usual books I read for Lover’s Quarrel.
I knew this book was going to be good and it didn’t disappoint. Ziva’s an excellently complex and well-written character. And this book has the ability to pull you into its world with its excellent descriptions and smooth language.
Unfortunately, this can be a dark and dreary world that will sometimes leave you in unnecessary suspense. Time can also be a little wonky, too, due to the several points of view.
While there are many storylines, Ziva and Isaac are the main characters. Ziva’s an immigrant from Macedonia, trying to make a living working at a clothing factory so she can eventually gain independence from her brother and his wife. Isaac is a bar owner and amateur writer trying to get over the death the death of his own wife.
They by far have the happiest story and they work so well together. I wish the book focused more on them and less on other characters. Every time something important happened with them– Isaac asks Ziva out for coffee, Ziva appears on his doorstep, anything that foreshadows hope and happiness and excitement– storylines were switched. We were suddenly on Simon’s point of view, or Michel’s. And I could have done with less of that.
Especially less focus on Simon.
Simon’s a negative guy with a negative outlook. He’s like an Edgar Allen Poe story in the form of a person. He’ll make you hate life and he hurts everyone around him. Getting through his chapters took forever because he was so dreary.
Michel, a homeless man hiding from dangerous old contacts, had a pretty good storyline. Actually, it was really interesting and complex. If it were its own book, then it would have been a great book to read. But shared with Ziva and Isaac, is was a pain in the butt. And it really hurt both storylines.
Because both storylines were crammed into only 391 pages, they both suffered. I wanted to know more about Michel’s past and Danielle’s home life, and see more of the two of them. I also wanted to know more about Ziva and what happens with her and Isaac, as well as what happens with her work. Ziva’s brother was really well-developed in the beginning and then he just disappears. What’s that about? And what the hell are Ziva and Isaac going to do about the really fast development in their relationship? (I wish I could say, but it’s too much of a spoiler.)
While this is still an excellently written book with an intricate plot, Vukovic’s storytelling skill is not all the way honed yet. I have no doubt that this book will be followed by better books by him.
I knew this book was going to be good and it didn’t disappoint. Ziva’s an excellently complex and well-written character. And this book has the ability to pull you into its world with its excellent descriptions and smooth language.
Unfortunately, this can be a dark and dreary world that will sometimes leave you in unnecessary suspense. Time can also be a little wonky, too, due to the several points of view.
While there are many storylines, Ziva and Isaac are the main characters. Ziva’s an immigrant from Macedonia, trying to make a living working at a clothing factory so she can eventually gain independence from her brother and his wife. Isaac is a bar owner and amateur writer trying to get over the death the death of his own wife.
They by far have the happiest story and they work so well together. I wish the book focused more on them and less on other characters. Every time something important happened with them– Isaac asks Ziva out for coffee, Ziva appears on his doorstep, anything that foreshadows hope and happiness and excitement– storylines were switched. We were suddenly on Simon’s point of view, or Michel’s. And I could have done with less of that.
Especially less focus on Simon.
Simon’s a negative guy with a negative outlook. He’s like an Edgar Allen Poe story in the form of a person. He’ll make you hate life and he hurts everyone around him. Getting through his chapters took forever because he was so dreary.
Michel, a homeless man hiding from dangerous old contacts, had a pretty good storyline. Actually, it was really interesting and complex. If it were its own book, then it would have been a great book to read. But shared with Ziva and Isaac, is was a pain in the butt. And it really hurt both storylines.
Because both storylines were crammed into only 391 pages, they both suffered. I wanted to know more about Michel’s past and Danielle’s home life, and see more of the two of them. I also wanted to know more about Ziva and what happens with her and Isaac, as well as what happens with her work. Ziva’s brother was really well-developed in the beginning and then he just disappears. What’s that about? And what the hell are Ziva and Isaac going to do about the really fast development in their relationship? (I wish I could say, but it’s too much of a spoiler.)
While this is still an excellently written book with an intricate plot, Vukovic’s storytelling skill is not all the way honed yet. I have no doubt that this book will be followed by better books by him.
Christina Haynes (148 KP) rated Bonfire in Books
Feb 10, 2018
BONFIRE by KRYSTEN RITTER
Contains spoilers, click to show
I’ve been a fan of Krysten Ritter ever since she played Lucy in Gilmore Girls - one of Rory Gilmore’s Yale friends. I was so excited when I found out she was writing a book. I pre-ordered it as soon as I could and eagerly waited for it to arrive on Thursday 9th November, not long after Bonfire night.
This book is by far one of the best Thrillers I’ve read. Although I am more of a Fantasy, Sci-Fi kinda girl I do like a good Thriller. Krysten Ritter does an excellent job at writing and I hope she writes more books in the future. Because she really is talented. I feel very excited about this book, like I'm apart of it because following Krysten on Instagram gave me VIP access to information about the book, like its cover! Which I love.
Abby Williams is an environmental lawyer who lives in Chicago and grew up in a place called Barrens, Indiana. She left Barrens ten years ago and decided to keep her past just that - her past. But a case that she’s working on takes her back to her roots and let's just say Abby isn’t exactly pleased. Her mother died when she was younger and she has no siblings, which leaves just her father. Abby hasn’t always had the best relationship with him but deep down you do see a love they both share with each other.
When Abby was younger she was best friends with a girl named Kaycee Mitchell. They both had a lot in common, like not having a mother around, being only children and not having any friends. That was until Kaycee became friends with Misha Dale, Cora Allen and Annie Baum. She then changes by not being very nice to Abby. Of course, Kaycee wasn’t always nice to Abby and there were days when Abby didn’t like Kaycee, but you could maybe put that down as just being young.
But in high school - she was bullied. Along with Kaycee poisoning her dog and keeping his collar for years until just before Kaycee goes missing when Abby finds it in her locker like a cruel reminder of what happened.
Kaycee Mitchell left the town of Barrens at the end of her last year of school and no one knows where she went, not even her father. Before she left she was ill, very ill. But everyone believes she was making it up with her friends, who were also saying they were ill. Kaycee and her friends love attention, in fact, some might say they crave it. So by being ill, they all got the attention they wanted.
Now back in Barrens Abby has to investigate a company called Optimal Plastics who are the towns ‘Savers’ they have paid for the new community centre and much more and the whole town loves them. Not only have they rescued the town with jobs and community centres they have also put Barrens back on the map. But something very dodgy is going on with them and Abby and her team are here to find out what.
Abby has to go back to her memories to help her understand what’s going on with Optimal Plastics. She has to face old foes and worries she's tried to leave behind. Abby is determined to uncover their secrets. But the main question is what did happen to Kaycee Mitchell and was she really sick?
There is a lot more than meets the eye with this book, a lot like Optimal Plastics. You don’t realise how complex the story is until you start to unravel what’s inside.
Nothing burns as bright as the truth - and the truth is… I loved this book.
Love, Christina ?
This book is by far one of the best Thrillers I’ve read. Although I am more of a Fantasy, Sci-Fi kinda girl I do like a good Thriller. Krysten Ritter does an excellent job at writing and I hope she writes more books in the future. Because she really is talented. I feel very excited about this book, like I'm apart of it because following Krysten on Instagram gave me VIP access to information about the book, like its cover! Which I love.
Abby Williams is an environmental lawyer who lives in Chicago and grew up in a place called Barrens, Indiana. She left Barrens ten years ago and decided to keep her past just that - her past. But a case that she’s working on takes her back to her roots and let's just say Abby isn’t exactly pleased. Her mother died when she was younger and she has no siblings, which leaves just her father. Abby hasn’t always had the best relationship with him but deep down you do see a love they both share with each other.
When Abby was younger she was best friends with a girl named Kaycee Mitchell. They both had a lot in common, like not having a mother around, being only children and not having any friends. That was until Kaycee became friends with Misha Dale, Cora Allen and Annie Baum. She then changes by not being very nice to Abby. Of course, Kaycee wasn’t always nice to Abby and there were days when Abby didn’t like Kaycee, but you could maybe put that down as just being young.
But in high school - she was bullied. Along with Kaycee poisoning her dog and keeping his collar for years until just before Kaycee goes missing when Abby finds it in her locker like a cruel reminder of what happened.
Kaycee Mitchell left the town of Barrens at the end of her last year of school and no one knows where she went, not even her father. Before she left she was ill, very ill. But everyone believes she was making it up with her friends, who were also saying they were ill. Kaycee and her friends love attention, in fact, some might say they crave it. So by being ill, they all got the attention they wanted.
Now back in Barrens Abby has to investigate a company called Optimal Plastics who are the towns ‘Savers’ they have paid for the new community centre and much more and the whole town loves them. Not only have they rescued the town with jobs and community centres they have also put Barrens back on the map. But something very dodgy is going on with them and Abby and her team are here to find out what.
Abby has to go back to her memories to help her understand what’s going on with Optimal Plastics. She has to face old foes and worries she's tried to leave behind. Abby is determined to uncover their secrets. But the main question is what did happen to Kaycee Mitchell and was she really sick?
There is a lot more than meets the eye with this book, a lot like Optimal Plastics. You don’t realise how complex the story is until you start to unravel what’s inside.
Nothing burns as bright as the truth - and the truth is… I loved this book.
Love, Christina ?
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Disaster films and Hollywood have enjoyed a long and successful partnership over the years as box office gold has been found in fictional disasters. Irwin Allen had a string of hits such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure” which in turn lead to the films such as “Dante’s Peak”, “Volcano”, “Deep Impact”, and “Armageddon” who kept the tried and true formula of relatable, regular people forced to cope with extraordinary situations where they must battle against all odds to survive.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A powerful force is hidden on Earth, three Mother Boxes, previously used by Steppenwolf and his army of Parademons in an attempt to conquer Earth. As the planet mourns the loss of Superman the power is ignited again and triggers Steppenwolf's return to Earth. When Themyscira is attacked and their Mother Box is stolen, Queen Hippolyta warns her daughter of what is to come.
Bruce Wayne (Batman, shhhh don't tell anyone) enlists Diana Prince to help him gather other metahumans in an effort to stop the impending destruction of the Earth. It's time to meet the new recruits: Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, Barry Allen AKA The Flash, and Victor Stone AKA Cyborg.
My worry here was that they couldn't come close to how well they did with Wonder Woman. Thankfully, while not everything was quite right, I really enjoyed this film and I barely felt any pain at watching this... all the pain happened when I rewatched Batman Vs Superman before going to see Justice League.
Let me get the gripes out of the way. The CGI, which seems to be a quibble from a lot of people. I'm not really sure how you manage to successfully do so much of it, and yet the villain... quite a major part of the film... looked terrible. In all honesty he kind of looked like they'd tried to recreate Liam Neeson in some shots so why not just get Liam Neeson in and wack some makeup on him. I'd totally have watched that. As for CGIing off Henry Cavill's moustache, admittedly some of the shots looked a little bit off, but I'm not convinced that if we hadn't known about it that most of us would have been able to tell, because who is going to be staring at that unless you have a fetish for his upper lip?
They also tried to make Batman/Bruce Wayne funny, which felt a little odd, and slightly forced at times. You can understand it to some degree, when you're bringing in Flash who is generally regarded as the comedian of the bunch then you're going to have to add some humour in so that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Obviously we know that I love Wonder Woman, so there isn't a lot I need to say there, she still rocked. I enjoyed Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and yes, a significant portion of that was looking at his half naked body. But I thought he played the part really well, and I loved him getting caught out by Diana's lasso. With the other two I was worried that me knowing them from other things would make it difficult getting to grips with these new incarnations. Thankfully it wasn't too bad though. As it happens I'm not a fan of either Grant Gustin or Ezra Miller in the role of Flash. This film version is probably more how I picture his character, but neither actor really brings it across to me quite how I'd hope. Finally, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, mock me if you must, but I've only seen the character in action as part of Teen Titans Go! In that he's a somewhat happy go lucky chap who loves his food, and this one is a bit more angsty as his creation is quite fresh. I enjoyed him as a character though, it was interesting to see how he developed as his powers did.
I'm not really sure how I felt about the Superman regeneration part of the story, I suppose at least he did a David Tennant and regenerated into himself.
Not a bad offering after Wonder Woman, and I'm looking forward to the follow up films that'll be coming out over the next few years.
Bruce Wayne (Batman, shhhh don't tell anyone) enlists Diana Prince to help him gather other metahumans in an effort to stop the impending destruction of the Earth. It's time to meet the new recruits: Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, Barry Allen AKA The Flash, and Victor Stone AKA Cyborg.
My worry here was that they couldn't come close to how well they did with Wonder Woman. Thankfully, while not everything was quite right, I really enjoyed this film and I barely felt any pain at watching this... all the pain happened when I rewatched Batman Vs Superman before going to see Justice League.
Let me get the gripes out of the way. The CGI, which seems to be a quibble from a lot of people. I'm not really sure how you manage to successfully do so much of it, and yet the villain... quite a major part of the film... looked terrible. In all honesty he kind of looked like they'd tried to recreate Liam Neeson in some shots so why not just get Liam Neeson in and wack some makeup on him. I'd totally have watched that. As for CGIing off Henry Cavill's moustache, admittedly some of the shots looked a little bit off, but I'm not convinced that if we hadn't known about it that most of us would have been able to tell, because who is going to be staring at that unless you have a fetish for his upper lip?
They also tried to make Batman/Bruce Wayne funny, which felt a little odd, and slightly forced at times. You can understand it to some degree, when you're bringing in Flash who is generally regarded as the comedian of the bunch then you're going to have to add some humour in so that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Obviously we know that I love Wonder Woman, so there isn't a lot I need to say there, she still rocked. I enjoyed Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and yes, a significant portion of that was looking at his half naked body. But I thought he played the part really well, and I loved him getting caught out by Diana's lasso. With the other two I was worried that me knowing them from other things would make it difficult getting to grips with these new incarnations. Thankfully it wasn't too bad though. As it happens I'm not a fan of either Grant Gustin or Ezra Miller in the role of Flash. This film version is probably more how I picture his character, but neither actor really brings it across to me quite how I'd hope. Finally, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, mock me if you must, but I've only seen the character in action as part of Teen Titans Go! In that he's a somewhat happy go lucky chap who loves his food, and this one is a bit more angsty as his creation is quite fresh. I enjoyed him as a character though, it was interesting to see how he developed as his powers did.
I'm not really sure how I felt about the Superman regeneration part of the story, I suppose at least he did a David Tennant and regenerated into himself.
Not a bad offering after Wonder Woman, and I'm looking forward to the follow up films that'll be coming out over the next few years.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Toy Story 3 (2010) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Character-Driven Masterpiece
There aren’t a lot of movie series’ that get better with each movie, but the Toy Story franchise has definitely accomplished that. Toy Story 3 is not just the best movie of the franchise to date, but it’s also one of the greatest movies ever made. Also, before I go any further: DAMN, it feels good to be posting another review. To quote John Wick: “Yeah, I’m thinking I’m back!” But I digress…In this third installment, Andy is all grown up and the gang sets their sights on a preschool where they hope to get played with everyday for eternity.
Acting: 10
It’s almost unfair when you think about the amazing cast of the Toy Story franchise. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen as Woody ad Buzz really have a way of putting you dead in the moment. These are toys, yet, somehow, the phenomenal acting jobs truly brings them to life as sentient beings. Their pain as well as their triumphs are felt throughout.
Beginning: 10
Yet another thing this franchise has gotten down to a science. The first five minutes of the movie puts you in a grand adventure where all the toys are facing off against each other. Then the next five minutes are heartbreaking. It’s a pleasant rollercoaster that sets the story up perfectly.
Characters: 10
The gang’s all here, including Cowgirl Jessie from the last movie and her horse Bullseye. In addition to having their own flavor and personality, I can really appreciate how Buzz and Woody continue to develop as characters. Buzz continues to try and be the voice of reason while Woody relies mainly on his emotion. I really enjoyed Lotso (Ned Beatty) as well, a purple teddy who smells like strawberries and walks with a cane. If those were his only interesting quirks that would be enough, but there is so much more to appreciate about his character that I won’t give away.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You know the visuals are at masterpiece levels when I’m marveling at a trash bag. A trash bag for God’s sake! But man the detail on this bag, the way it moved just so perfectly. I know, I’m a nutcase, but this trash bag! It’s the sheer attention to detail that blows my mind. There is another shot, and this one is probably my favorite, of Lotso stepping into the lights of a Tonka truck with his cronies to approach Buzz and the gang. The way the light hits perfectly casting shadows definitely tells me there are no shortages of geniuses at Pixar.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Toy Story 3 is why I love movies. From bottom to top, it checks all the boxes. You will experience a wave of emotions and have fun the whole way.
Memorability: 10
The movie casts a memorable message about our ability to let go and move on. Watching this at different points in my life, every single time I could relate to Woody and his struggles with letting go. Oh yeah, and the film is super fun too. I can’t count the number of moments where I marveled at how this movie does things that creatively surpass the other two. Like Up, this is a movie that sticks with you long after you watch it.
Pace: 10
The longest of the three, yet it somehow feels like the shortest. There is always something exciting that’s happening. Its ebbs and flows move the story along with every single detail somehow feeling important.
Plot: 10
Watching this made me think, “Oh my goodness, they could do a hundred more of these and it would never get old.” This story stands alone and has actual plausibility…well, as toy stories go anyway. At one point, the movie moves from new adventure to crazy heist to prison break. And I’m here for all of it, every last piece.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Watching a movie like this is like watching a talented gymnast perform an unforgettable routine. You know you want to give it a perfect score provided they stick the landing. Beginning, middle, and end Toy Story 3 establishes credibility as being epic and damn-near perfect. Landing stuck.
Acting: 10
It’s almost unfair when you think about the amazing cast of the Toy Story franchise. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen as Woody ad Buzz really have a way of putting you dead in the moment. These are toys, yet, somehow, the phenomenal acting jobs truly brings them to life as sentient beings. Their pain as well as their triumphs are felt throughout.
Beginning: 10
Yet another thing this franchise has gotten down to a science. The first five minutes of the movie puts you in a grand adventure where all the toys are facing off against each other. Then the next five minutes are heartbreaking. It’s a pleasant rollercoaster that sets the story up perfectly.
Characters: 10
The gang’s all here, including Cowgirl Jessie from the last movie and her horse Bullseye. In addition to having their own flavor and personality, I can really appreciate how Buzz and Woody continue to develop as characters. Buzz continues to try and be the voice of reason while Woody relies mainly on his emotion. I really enjoyed Lotso (Ned Beatty) as well, a purple teddy who smells like strawberries and walks with a cane. If those were his only interesting quirks that would be enough, but there is so much more to appreciate about his character that I won’t give away.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You know the visuals are at masterpiece levels when I’m marveling at a trash bag. A trash bag for God’s sake! But man the detail on this bag, the way it moved just so perfectly. I know, I’m a nutcase, but this trash bag! It’s the sheer attention to detail that blows my mind. There is another shot, and this one is probably my favorite, of Lotso stepping into the lights of a Tonka truck with his cronies to approach Buzz and the gang. The way the light hits perfectly casting shadows definitely tells me there are no shortages of geniuses at Pixar.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Toy Story 3 is why I love movies. From bottom to top, it checks all the boxes. You will experience a wave of emotions and have fun the whole way.
Memorability: 10
The movie casts a memorable message about our ability to let go and move on. Watching this at different points in my life, every single time I could relate to Woody and his struggles with letting go. Oh yeah, and the film is super fun too. I can’t count the number of moments where I marveled at how this movie does things that creatively surpass the other two. Like Up, this is a movie that sticks with you long after you watch it.
Pace: 10
The longest of the three, yet it somehow feels like the shortest. There is always something exciting that’s happening. Its ebbs and flows move the story along with every single detail somehow feeling important.
Plot: 10
Watching this made me think, “Oh my goodness, they could do a hundred more of these and it would never get old.” This story stands alone and has actual plausibility…well, as toy stories go anyway. At one point, the movie moves from new adventure to crazy heist to prison break. And I’m here for all of it, every last piece.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Watching a movie like this is like watching a talented gymnast perform an unforgettable routine. You know you want to give it a perfect score provided they stick the landing. Beginning, middle, and end Toy Story 3 establishes credibility as being epic and damn-near perfect. Landing stuck.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 13, 2019
JUSTICE FOR THE LEAGUE
Contains spoilers, click to show
As much as it pains me to acknowledge it, this film got slaughtered upon its' release (and has endured much ridicule ever since)! Personally speaking....I don't get why.
Everyone and their dog - in reviewing this movie, quote the poor CGI, the fact that Steppenwolf is an ineffective villain, the obvious mish-mash of two directorial styles, weak storyline, oh...and the whole moustache thing. Bore, bore, bore. If anyone comes up with a valid reason for why they hate this film that they haven't read anywhere else a dozen times before then I might entertain them......nah, I won't, because I loved JL!
The opening scene shows us some 'amateur' style recorded footage of a brief conversation with Superman - a very short sequence that was clearly filmed by Joss Whedon. And yes, it is very obvious - and would be to someone unaware of the whole 'moustache-gate' affair, that something's wrong with Henry Cavill's upper lip. Does that detract from the experience? Is it really that much a big deal? No, it is not. And that's all I'll say on that aspect.
There is a very basic plot concerning Steppenwolf and his return to Earth to reclaim the three Mother Boxes which - when brought together, form 'The Unity' with which he hopes to transform the planet and get back in favour with his nephew (Darkseid). These boxes were left on Earth a long time ago following a battle with Steppenwolf (shown in Flashback) and placed into the care of the Atlanteans, the Amazons, and the Tribes of Man. We are given this background exposition fairly early on in proceedings from Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) which effectively sums up the gist of the movie - no criticism there. The first half of the film concerns Diana and Bruce Wayne's (Batman) efforts to bring together a small group of Meta-Humans in order to tackle the imminent threat balanced against Steppenwolf's successful recovery of two of the Boxes. Do we need a more complex plot?
After an initial encounter with the villain of the piece in which the newly formed League are knocked on their proverbial backsides Batman comes up with a way to resurrect the deceased Superman, involving a Mother Box, the recovered Kryptonian Scout Ship, and the Speedforce. To quote The Flash (aka Barry Allen, aka Ezra Miller) things go a bit 'Pet Sematary-y' as the resurrected Man Of Steel goes up against the JL in a confused fit of rage. The sequence depicting the skirmish is a highlight of the movie, and anyone who got a little annoyed t how much Batman was hell bent on persecuting Supes in BVS will get some satisfaction from hearing the line "Do you bleed?"!
It isn't long before the Superman we all know and love (although perhaps not the one from his darker portrayal in the previous two movies in which he appeared) returns - thanks to some intervention from Lois Lane, and joins his fellow heroes in their final battle with Steppenwolf.
Simple plot I agree but this is a story about individuals coming together in the name of hope. Each character gives enough that the audience cares about them, even if some of them could have been given a bit more to play with (sounds like sequel material to me!). Wonder Woman effectively becomes the Leader of the team - exorcising her demons in the process (see her solo movie for more) and Gal Gadot is great.
The battle scenes are fantastic - the attack on Themyscira by Steppenwolf being one such example, and complemented by the CGI. Yeah, I've heard the whole 'poor CGI' thing but frankly.... whatever?! Had I not stupidly read the reviews before seeing the film I might not have spent the running time watching the villain and thinking "Is he a poor villain?" (I came away thinking "Nah, he worked for me!")
Henry Cavill didn't get half as much screen time as the other characters in the League and it looks as if most of the Zac Snyder material featuring his Superman ended up on the cutting room floor, but he is one of the highlights. I will agree with the critics that WB seriously messed up with their marketing strategy in which they essentially 'excluded him' from all promotional material. I now eagerly await for Man of Steel 2 where we'll get to see more of the 'fun' Supes that we got in this movie.
I saw this film three times at the cinema and now own on Blu Ray. Fantastic film for the JL's first outing on the big screen. And you know what?
You are allowed to enjoy both the Justice League AND The Avengers!!
Everyone and their dog - in reviewing this movie, quote the poor CGI, the fact that Steppenwolf is an ineffective villain, the obvious mish-mash of two directorial styles, weak storyline, oh...and the whole moustache thing. Bore, bore, bore. If anyone comes up with a valid reason for why they hate this film that they haven't read anywhere else a dozen times before then I might entertain them......nah, I won't, because I loved JL!
The opening scene shows us some 'amateur' style recorded footage of a brief conversation with Superman - a very short sequence that was clearly filmed by Joss Whedon. And yes, it is very obvious - and would be to someone unaware of the whole 'moustache-gate' affair, that something's wrong with Henry Cavill's upper lip. Does that detract from the experience? Is it really that much a big deal? No, it is not. And that's all I'll say on that aspect.
There is a very basic plot concerning Steppenwolf and his return to Earth to reclaim the three Mother Boxes which - when brought together, form 'The Unity' with which he hopes to transform the planet and get back in favour with his nephew (Darkseid). These boxes were left on Earth a long time ago following a battle with Steppenwolf (shown in Flashback) and placed into the care of the Atlanteans, the Amazons, and the Tribes of Man. We are given this background exposition fairly early on in proceedings from Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) which effectively sums up the gist of the movie - no criticism there. The first half of the film concerns Diana and Bruce Wayne's (Batman) efforts to bring together a small group of Meta-Humans in order to tackle the imminent threat balanced against Steppenwolf's successful recovery of two of the Boxes. Do we need a more complex plot?
After an initial encounter with the villain of the piece in which the newly formed League are knocked on their proverbial backsides Batman comes up with a way to resurrect the deceased Superman, involving a Mother Box, the recovered Kryptonian Scout Ship, and the Speedforce. To quote The Flash (aka Barry Allen, aka Ezra Miller) things go a bit 'Pet Sematary-y' as the resurrected Man Of Steel goes up against the JL in a confused fit of rage. The sequence depicting the skirmish is a highlight of the movie, and anyone who got a little annoyed t how much Batman was hell bent on persecuting Supes in BVS will get some satisfaction from hearing the line "Do you bleed?"!
It isn't long before the Superman we all know and love (although perhaps not the one from his darker portrayal in the previous two movies in which he appeared) returns - thanks to some intervention from Lois Lane, and joins his fellow heroes in their final battle with Steppenwolf.
Simple plot I agree but this is a story about individuals coming together in the name of hope. Each character gives enough that the audience cares about them, even if some of them could have been given a bit more to play with (sounds like sequel material to me!). Wonder Woman effectively becomes the Leader of the team - exorcising her demons in the process (see her solo movie for more) and Gal Gadot is great.
The battle scenes are fantastic - the attack on Themyscira by Steppenwolf being one such example, and complemented by the CGI. Yeah, I've heard the whole 'poor CGI' thing but frankly.... whatever?! Had I not stupidly read the reviews before seeing the film I might not have spent the running time watching the villain and thinking "Is he a poor villain?" (I came away thinking "Nah, he worked for me!")
Henry Cavill didn't get half as much screen time as the other characters in the League and it looks as if most of the Zac Snyder material featuring his Superman ended up on the cutting room floor, but he is one of the highlights. I will agree with the critics that WB seriously messed up with their marketing strategy in which they essentially 'excluded him' from all promotional material. I now eagerly await for Man of Steel 2 where we'll get to see more of the 'fun' Supes that we got in this movie.
I saw this film three times at the cinema and now own on Blu Ray. Fantastic film for the JL's first outing on the big screen. And you know what?
You are allowed to enjoy both the Justice League AND The Avengers!!