Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Broken Harbor in Books
Feb 13, 2018
The fourth book in French's excellent Dublin Murder Squad series picks up with [b:Faithful Place|7093952|Faithful Place (Dublin Murder Squad, #3)|Tana French|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1291165900s/7093952.jpg|7350661]'s Mick Kennedy. Scorcher, as he's known, is a by-the-book cop famous for his diligence, attitude, and solve rate. However, he's still trying to make amends for one case, so he's given this one - a family found in an estate in the Irish suburbs. Father Patrick and the two children are dead, while mother/wife Jenny is in critical condition at the hospital. At first, Scorcher and his rookie partner, Richie, think the case is open and shut. But they quickly discover things aren't what they seem--with the Spains themselves or the murder case. Why are there holes all over the family's home, and baby monitors and cameras everywhere? Who erased the family's computer? Why did Jenny pull their young son out of preschool? Scorcher finds himself on a case that will test his resolve and the morals he holds so dearly.
This was an superb book; I don't know how French does it, but her novels never disappoint. It's a bit slow going, but amazingly interesting. Her painstaking detail of a crime scene and murder investigation is thorough and somehow beautiful; she knows her stuff. The first person detail with Mick is a welcome relief, honestly, after the "varying POV" chapters that seem to be the method du jour lately (I know the book is a few years old, but still). Mick is a crazily complex character and hearing his innermost thoughts just adds to his depth.
I won't lie: the book is long and it's probably not for everyone. You need to be a mystery fan and not be thrown off by a main character who talks and shares a lot. There's a dynamic between Mick and his new partner that adds to this detail and character development. Further, Mick and his family have a tie to Broken Harbor (the site of the murder), which involves some flashbacks. Again, it adds length, but also to the depth of his character. Plus, the plot kept me guessing, which I really appreciated. It would have been an easy 4.5 star rating, but it dived a little with the ending and a move that seemed a bit out of character for Mick, but still - an excellent mystery with a detailed and thoughtful plot. I'm glad I've picked up French's series again and look forward to getting completely caught up.
This was an superb book; I don't know how French does it, but her novels never disappoint. It's a bit slow going, but amazingly interesting. Her painstaking detail of a crime scene and murder investigation is thorough and somehow beautiful; she knows her stuff. The first person detail with Mick is a welcome relief, honestly, after the "varying POV" chapters that seem to be the method du jour lately (I know the book is a few years old, but still). Mick is a crazily complex character and hearing his innermost thoughts just adds to his depth.
I won't lie: the book is long and it's probably not for everyone. You need to be a mystery fan and not be thrown off by a main character who talks and shares a lot. There's a dynamic between Mick and his new partner that adds to this detail and character development. Further, Mick and his family have a tie to Broken Harbor (the site of the murder), which involves some flashbacks. Again, it adds length, but also to the depth of his character. Plus, the plot kept me guessing, which I really appreciated. It would have been an easy 4.5 star rating, but it dived a little with the ending and a move that seemed a bit out of character for Mick, but still - an excellent mystery with a detailed and thoughtful plot. I'm glad I've picked up French's series again and look forward to getting completely caught up.
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated Matronly Duties in Books
Nov 5, 2018
In a new ice age, the inhabitants of the world have gone underground, hiding from the freezing temperatures on the surface and as always happens in this type of situation, those in control become power crazy at the expense of their nation.
The premise of the story is well developed and is a very believable kind of future. This being said, it gives it a familiar kind of feeling when you're reading. The idea of humanity being restricted and having to survive in a relatively small space is something familiar in futuristic stories, but that's not saying this book is cliche, Kendall includes just enough unique twists to keep you on your toes.
As for characters, Beth is a good lead. She's level headed, naive but a very engaging kind of character. The reader is as naive in this world as Beth, and so it is excellent to learn vicariously through her as Howard opens her eyes to the injustices of the world in which she lives. Howard is very attractive to read, not just in looks, but in his personality which seems to ooze from the pages and infect the reader with their own desire to do something to make their own world better. All the intrigue and mystery is an excellent hook into the story, with the letters to one another being a useful tool to move the story on and develop their relationship.
The plot has a good pace, all be it a little slow to begin with, but it does develop smoothly as the story develops. It has a traditional kind of 'snowball down a hill' approach, with the revelations coming thick and fast as the characters are hurled into the next issue to deal with. Personally, I'd have liked to have seen a little more detail in the ending as it felt a little rushed. The epilogue did help to tidy some loose ends, but I do feel like there was more to discover there.
In conclusion, this books was a very good read, it captured my attention and held it, and is a book I found very enjoyable. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who enjoys a romance with a difference. I am looking forward to reading more from this author, and I do hope this group of characters are explored again in the future as there are definitely legs left in this universe.
*This book was first reviewed on Lily Loves Indie as part of a blog tour, for which an ARC was received in return for an honest review*
The premise of the story is well developed and is a very believable kind of future. This being said, it gives it a familiar kind of feeling when you're reading. The idea of humanity being restricted and having to survive in a relatively small space is something familiar in futuristic stories, but that's not saying this book is cliche, Kendall includes just enough unique twists to keep you on your toes.
As for characters, Beth is a good lead. She's level headed, naive but a very engaging kind of character. The reader is as naive in this world as Beth, and so it is excellent to learn vicariously through her as Howard opens her eyes to the injustices of the world in which she lives. Howard is very attractive to read, not just in looks, but in his personality which seems to ooze from the pages and infect the reader with their own desire to do something to make their own world better. All the intrigue and mystery is an excellent hook into the story, with the letters to one another being a useful tool to move the story on and develop their relationship.
The plot has a good pace, all be it a little slow to begin with, but it does develop smoothly as the story develops. It has a traditional kind of 'snowball down a hill' approach, with the revelations coming thick and fast as the characters are hurled into the next issue to deal with. Personally, I'd have liked to have seen a little more detail in the ending as it felt a little rushed. The epilogue did help to tidy some loose ends, but I do feel like there was more to discover there.
In conclusion, this books was a very good read, it captured my attention and held it, and is a book I found very enjoyable. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who enjoys a romance with a difference. I am looking forward to reading more from this author, and I do hope this group of characters are explored again in the future as there are definitely legs left in this universe.
*This book was first reviewed on Lily Loves Indie as part of a blog tour, for which an ARC was received in return for an honest review*
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Riddick (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Vin Diesel hits the silver screen in the third installment of the Chronicles of Riddick series. As you would expect, Diesel delivers on a role crafted solely for him.
Pitch Black opened in 2000, heralding a unique story with a compelling main character. Riddick was unique for his planning skills and killer instincts, and he possessed eyes with a “shine job,” which allowed him to see effectively in the dark. He was a convict — a killer — but he possessed enough of a conscience to be endearing and for the audience to identify with him.
In the second film (Chronicles of Riddick), an entirely different storyline unfolded. It showed Riddick as a hero, taking control of the Necromonger horde.
The third and newest film opens to show Riddick broken and stranded on a desolate planet. We watch as he ponders how he got into his current situation. After a brief flashback to the events of the second movie, the film segues into the new story — which feels very reminiscent of the first. This time around, Riddick is up against bounty hunters.
The beginning third of the film pits Riddick against nature itself. Later, the bounty hunters arrive, and the game of cat and mouse goes into overdrive.
I found the transition from the second film to the third adequate, but unsatisfying.
The script, acting, action, and cinematography are all top notch. I was happy with the production value. It didn’t feel cheap or cheesy at all; the effects seemed believable.
I enjoyed the humor. I also appreciated the complexity of the Riddick character, something fans of the series have all come to love.
There were a few plot holes, and a couple of inconsistencies, but overall it’s a great film.
One of the greatest parts of the film is Katee Sackhoff (“Starbuck” of Battlestar Galactica fame), and her bare breast. (I’m a hetero dude — sue me!) The other gratuitous nudity (including one shot of a woman’s shaved groin area) was appropriate and served as great icing on the filmography cake.
My main criticism is that this movie had almost nothing to do with the previous films. There were two great tie-ins, but it never felt like a true continuation of the story line, not in any meaningful way. It was very unsatisfying in that respect However, as a stand-alone action film featuring Riddick, it delivers.
This movie is well worth seeing, but it will dissapoint those looking for strong continuity with the other parts of the franchise.
Pitch Black opened in 2000, heralding a unique story with a compelling main character. Riddick was unique for his planning skills and killer instincts, and he possessed eyes with a “shine job,” which allowed him to see effectively in the dark. He was a convict — a killer — but he possessed enough of a conscience to be endearing and for the audience to identify with him.
In the second film (Chronicles of Riddick), an entirely different storyline unfolded. It showed Riddick as a hero, taking control of the Necromonger horde.
The third and newest film opens to show Riddick broken and stranded on a desolate planet. We watch as he ponders how he got into his current situation. After a brief flashback to the events of the second movie, the film segues into the new story — which feels very reminiscent of the first. This time around, Riddick is up against bounty hunters.
The beginning third of the film pits Riddick against nature itself. Later, the bounty hunters arrive, and the game of cat and mouse goes into overdrive.
I found the transition from the second film to the third adequate, but unsatisfying.
The script, acting, action, and cinematography are all top notch. I was happy with the production value. It didn’t feel cheap or cheesy at all; the effects seemed believable.
I enjoyed the humor. I also appreciated the complexity of the Riddick character, something fans of the series have all come to love.
There were a few plot holes, and a couple of inconsistencies, but overall it’s a great film.
One of the greatest parts of the film is Katee Sackhoff (“Starbuck” of Battlestar Galactica fame), and her bare breast. (I’m a hetero dude — sue me!) The other gratuitous nudity (including one shot of a woman’s shaved groin area) was appropriate and served as great icing on the filmography cake.
My main criticism is that this movie had almost nothing to do with the previous films. There were two great tie-ins, but it never felt like a true continuation of the story line, not in any meaningful way. It was very unsatisfying in that respect However, as a stand-alone action film featuring Riddick, it delivers.
This movie is well worth seeing, but it will dissapoint those looking for strong continuity with the other parts of the franchise.
Melanie Caldicott (6 KP) rated The Lost Apothecary in Books
Apr 29, 2021
Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for the ARe-copy in exchange for this honest review. You can also read my review on my blog - https:roamingthroughbooks.wordpress.com
The Lost Apothecary by Sarah Penner is a novel which switches between the storylines of a female apothecary in the 1790s who sells poisons to women to kill men who have wronged them and the present day, in which Caroline happens upon a clue which leads her to investigate the apothecary’s story.
Well, the idea of an apothecary dispensing poison for women to use for murder was enticing to say the least. This book had the potential to weave a thought-provoking, adventurous tale, developing themes about womanhood, oppression and doing evil for good. Sadly, for me it did not quite meet the mark.
The narratives switch between three characters, Caroline, our present-day historian, Nella, the apothecary, and Eliza, a servant girl who becomes friends with Nella over the course of the book.
As I said, I was expecting this novel to grapple with challenging themes, which could have been very emotive and dark. Yet, it turned out to be just a bland bit of light fiction never dwelling on anything for too long, skimming over the surface of most of the characters, their motives and their reactions and lacking depth on any of the parallel-running plotlines.
It is surprising how a book surrounding multiple murders, historical medicine and herbalism and women trapped in marriages with infidels, letches and rapists could be quite so vanilla. It was a pleasant enough read, but lacked the substance I was hoping for.
I found Nella, the apothecary to be a bit of an enigma. We do learn about her back story and gain some insight into her motives for dispensing the poisons. However, for a woman who was resourceful enough to construct the whole clandestine operation we meet her in a weakened state and I grew frustrated with how she seemed to fall into an oblivious kind of dream-like manner becoming swept along by circumstance with no clear influence on the events or people around her.
Eliza, was a naïve girl who met Nella whilst running an errand for her mistress. It is not really clear why the friendship between Nella and Eliza develops, it seems to be more for the convenience of the plot than due to real concrete reasoning. However, an intimacy develops between them which has the potential to bring new colour to the characters. But yet again, Penner seems to skim the surface of going to any depths and I was left feeling robbed of any insight into the emotional and kindred aspects of their friendship.
Finally, Caroline’s story in the present day brought a different perspective to the themes of womanhood running through this book. She parallels the wronged women of the 18th century by escaping to London on a trip she was supposed to take with her husband to celebrate their tenth wedding anniversary, but was instead travelling alone having discovered her husband had been having an affair.
I initially enjoyed Caroline’s historical investigations as they took her to The British Library and researching documents and newspapers there. As an avid genealogist I appreciated the details Penner gives about the sources of Caroline’s research and the challenges of finding the truth from historical documents.
Yet, again her story became somewhat contrived. It seemed unlikely that she would make some of the discoveries she did and her investigation became constructed around coincidence and unrealistic serendipity. Even the parallel storylines surrounding her relationship and those from the apothecary’s timeline seemed somewhat silly and phoney.
For me, the conclusion of the book yet again did not fully reconcile itself and therefore left me unmoved and feeling somewhat apathetic about the ending and the novel as a whole.
The Lost Apothecary by Sarah Penner is a novel which switches between the storylines of a female apothecary in the 1790s who sells poisons to women to kill men who have wronged them and the present day, in which Caroline happens upon a clue which leads her to investigate the apothecary’s story.
Well, the idea of an apothecary dispensing poison for women to use for murder was enticing to say the least. This book had the potential to weave a thought-provoking, adventurous tale, developing themes about womanhood, oppression and doing evil for good. Sadly, for me it did not quite meet the mark.
The narratives switch between three characters, Caroline, our present-day historian, Nella, the apothecary, and Eliza, a servant girl who becomes friends with Nella over the course of the book.
As I said, I was expecting this novel to grapple with challenging themes, which could have been very emotive and dark. Yet, it turned out to be just a bland bit of light fiction never dwelling on anything for too long, skimming over the surface of most of the characters, their motives and their reactions and lacking depth on any of the parallel-running plotlines.
It is surprising how a book surrounding multiple murders, historical medicine and herbalism and women trapped in marriages with infidels, letches and rapists could be quite so vanilla. It was a pleasant enough read, but lacked the substance I was hoping for.
I found Nella, the apothecary to be a bit of an enigma. We do learn about her back story and gain some insight into her motives for dispensing the poisons. However, for a woman who was resourceful enough to construct the whole clandestine operation we meet her in a weakened state and I grew frustrated with how she seemed to fall into an oblivious kind of dream-like manner becoming swept along by circumstance with no clear influence on the events or people around her.
Eliza, was a naïve girl who met Nella whilst running an errand for her mistress. It is not really clear why the friendship between Nella and Eliza develops, it seems to be more for the convenience of the plot than due to real concrete reasoning. However, an intimacy develops between them which has the potential to bring new colour to the characters. But yet again, Penner seems to skim the surface of going to any depths and I was left feeling robbed of any insight into the emotional and kindred aspects of their friendship.
Finally, Caroline’s story in the present day brought a different perspective to the themes of womanhood running through this book. She parallels the wronged women of the 18th century by escaping to London on a trip she was supposed to take with her husband to celebrate their tenth wedding anniversary, but was instead travelling alone having discovered her husband had been having an affair.
I initially enjoyed Caroline’s historical investigations as they took her to The British Library and researching documents and newspapers there. As an avid genealogist I appreciated the details Penner gives about the sources of Caroline’s research and the challenges of finding the truth from historical documents.
Yet, again her story became somewhat contrived. It seemed unlikely that she would make some of the discoveries she did and her investigation became constructed around coincidence and unrealistic serendipity. Even the parallel storylines surrounding her relationship and those from the apothecary’s timeline seemed somewhat silly and phoney.
For me, the conclusion of the book yet again did not fully reconcile itself and therefore left me unmoved and feeling somewhat apathetic about the ending and the novel as a whole.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
These X-Men end not with a Bang but with a Whimper
"This is how it ends,not with a bang, but with a whimper".
Running a successful movie franchise is a tricky thing. For every franchise that ends successfully (the original Harry Potter series, the recent Avengers), there are many, many more that just sort of peter out (The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, every version of Star Trek), and, unfortunately, this run of the X-MEN is finishing up with a look of boredom and disinterest.
And that's too bad for the DARK PHOENIX story line had great, dramatic potential to go with a series of whiz-bang special effect set pieces that should have been spectacular. Telling the tale of erswhile X-Men "hero", Jean Grey, who is turned into a villain and battles her former mates, DARK PHOENIX is filled with missed opportunities.
Let's start with the lackluster Direction and lame script - both by Simon Kinberg - a Producer and sometime writer who is making his Feature Film Directorial debut with this film. He should stay with Producing. His direction is limp and uninspired which fits in well with his uninspiring dialogue and clunky interactions and plot machinations.
At least the top notch actors can save this turkey, right?
Nope. For the most part, they are just as uninspired and mediocre as the direction and writing and that is too bad for they are a strong collection of performers. James McAvoy is just lost as Charles Xavier. I can see the look in his eyes as he is thinking to himself "what is my character trying to do here"? I didn't believe for a second that he believed anything his character was saying and doing. Same goes for the usually reliable Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy/Beast. The script has these two at odds with each and they both act these scenes with a "we don't buy this contrived fight either" chagrined look.
The usually reliable Jessica Chastain is wasted as the main villain in this film, a mysterious figure who serves as the anti-Charles Xavier mentor to Jean Grey (Sophie Turner, more on her later). It looks to me that she was given the "George Lucas/Natalie Portman/Star Wars: Episode 1" acting guideline - be one note and monotonous and take out any hint of emotion. Which also takes out any hint of interest.
As for Turner, I'm sorry to say this about an actress that I generally loved in GAME OF THRONES, but she is just plain bad in her role as the conflicted Jean Grey. Her character is torn between the good and the bad, but instead of acting that, she says it over and over again "I don't know what's happening to me", "I feel torn". She (and Director/Writer Kinberg) violate the #1 rule in movies - "Show, don't tell". They "tell" over and over and don't take the time to show. Disappointing wouldn't begin to describe my reaction to Turner's performance.
At least Jennifer Lawrence is there to ground this film and bring some of her star power, right? Nope. She waltzes through the few scenes she has in this film with the look of "I am contractually obligated to be here".
Well...how about Even Peters who was a bit of a breakout as Quicksilver? Nope...they, inexplicably, sideline his character fairly early on in this film.
The only saving grace in this movie is the great Michael Fassbender as Magneto. He was a welcome, charismatic presence in this film that drew my attention - and interest - the second he appeared on screen. It was great to see him and I found myself rooting for him - no matter what. Doesn't matter that Magneto's presence in this film is shoe-horned in. You could take his character out of this film and the outcomes probably wouldn't change a bit. But...I don't care...at least there was someone interesting to watch.
At least there are decent action scenes, right? Nope. Kinberg chooses to use the quick/cut edit confuse the audience style of action to cover mistakes in both choreography and geography and figures a quick cut and an explosion can cover lack of emotional commitment and interesting fight choreography.
This film closes this Chapter on these X-Men and (besides Fassbender and an "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE" moment that was pretty cool) I say good riddance. With Disney's purchase of Fox and Marvel, the X-Men can now be incorporated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that can only be an improvement on this.
Letter Grade C+ (Fassbender's performance keeps this from being a total failure)
5 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Running a successful movie franchise is a tricky thing. For every franchise that ends successfully (the original Harry Potter series, the recent Avengers), there are many, many more that just sort of peter out (The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, every version of Star Trek), and, unfortunately, this run of the X-MEN is finishing up with a look of boredom and disinterest.
And that's too bad for the DARK PHOENIX story line had great, dramatic potential to go with a series of whiz-bang special effect set pieces that should have been spectacular. Telling the tale of erswhile X-Men "hero", Jean Grey, who is turned into a villain and battles her former mates, DARK PHOENIX is filled with missed opportunities.
Let's start with the lackluster Direction and lame script - both by Simon Kinberg - a Producer and sometime writer who is making his Feature Film Directorial debut with this film. He should stay with Producing. His direction is limp and uninspired which fits in well with his uninspiring dialogue and clunky interactions and plot machinations.
At least the top notch actors can save this turkey, right?
Nope. For the most part, they are just as uninspired and mediocre as the direction and writing and that is too bad for they are a strong collection of performers. James McAvoy is just lost as Charles Xavier. I can see the look in his eyes as he is thinking to himself "what is my character trying to do here"? I didn't believe for a second that he believed anything his character was saying and doing. Same goes for the usually reliable Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy/Beast. The script has these two at odds with each and they both act these scenes with a "we don't buy this contrived fight either" chagrined look.
The usually reliable Jessica Chastain is wasted as the main villain in this film, a mysterious figure who serves as the anti-Charles Xavier mentor to Jean Grey (Sophie Turner, more on her later). It looks to me that she was given the "George Lucas/Natalie Portman/Star Wars: Episode 1" acting guideline - be one note and monotonous and take out any hint of emotion. Which also takes out any hint of interest.
As for Turner, I'm sorry to say this about an actress that I generally loved in GAME OF THRONES, but she is just plain bad in her role as the conflicted Jean Grey. Her character is torn between the good and the bad, but instead of acting that, she says it over and over again "I don't know what's happening to me", "I feel torn". She (and Director/Writer Kinberg) violate the #1 rule in movies - "Show, don't tell". They "tell" over and over and don't take the time to show. Disappointing wouldn't begin to describe my reaction to Turner's performance.
At least Jennifer Lawrence is there to ground this film and bring some of her star power, right? Nope. She waltzes through the few scenes she has in this film with the look of "I am contractually obligated to be here".
Well...how about Even Peters who was a bit of a breakout as Quicksilver? Nope...they, inexplicably, sideline his character fairly early on in this film.
The only saving grace in this movie is the great Michael Fassbender as Magneto. He was a welcome, charismatic presence in this film that drew my attention - and interest - the second he appeared on screen. It was great to see him and I found myself rooting for him - no matter what. Doesn't matter that Magneto's presence in this film is shoe-horned in. You could take his character out of this film and the outcomes probably wouldn't change a bit. But...I don't care...at least there was someone interesting to watch.
At least there are decent action scenes, right? Nope. Kinberg chooses to use the quick/cut edit confuse the audience style of action to cover mistakes in both choreography and geography and figures a quick cut and an explosion can cover lack of emotional commitment and interesting fight choreography.
This film closes this Chapter on these X-Men and (besides Fassbender and an "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE" moment that was pretty cool) I say good riddance. With Disney's purchase of Fox and Marvel, the X-Men can now be incorporated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that can only be an improvement on this.
Letter Grade C+ (Fassbender's performance keeps this from being a total failure)
5 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
As part of my project to compile a coffee table book called 21st Century cinema: 200 Unmissable Films, I have found it interesting, but not surprising, that almost 10% of the list since the year 2000 are animated features. It is an art form that Pixar and Disney especially, but many smaller studios, are excelling in, because of technological advances, and the free range of realising an imaginative vision. The trouble often is that they aren’t my first port of call anymore now I don’t have a kid around to watch them with. So it takes me some time to catch up on the good ones these days.
Also, for every good one there are several really lame ones, designed to get families into cinemas and take their money without much concession to a good script. It only takes the bad experience of a couple of those to put you off the genre as an adult. It can be hard to remember that some are made only with 6 year olds in mind. Frozen, for example. They have their place, and the phenomenon of which ones kids are drawn to is a different study altogether. For the purposes of my list, I am looking for the ones that can entertain young and older audiences at the same time. And, to date, no one has done that better than Pixar.
The benchmark, for me, remains Monsters Inc, The Incredibles and the Toy Story series. The latter especially, have a great knack of pleasing all generations. The key is always the writing. Animation styles and techniques can impress the eye, but it is always the theme, the relationships and the words that make an animated film enduring. Music also plays a big part; as does the level of humour. Both incredibly intangible arts that you can’t just buy.
I watched Coco on a Sunday morning – the perfect time to watch an animated film, by law! Chances are you will be a little hungover (I was) and susceptible to the inevitable sentimentality you are about to experience. The first thing that struck me was the colours! Embracing a Latin American cultural canvas, I don’t think I have ever seen such a vivid rainbow attacking my senses. From the naked flames of the candles, to the warm tones of the sunlight and the almost neon glow on display around the dead and the world of the afterlife, it was a visual treat I can honestly say I have never experienced before.
Oh, yes, Coco is about dying, if you didn’t know! And to say more about the genius of their approach to it, would be classed as a spoiler! The action takes place on Diá de Muertos (the day of the dead), when family members can revisit their loved ones, as long as they have been remembered. Our hero, young Miguel, loves music. But his family have banned him from listening to, or playing, it because of the shame surrounding a long dead ancestor. The magic of the day leads him to the underworld of the dead, to find out the truth and save the day.
Of course, once there, he meets all sorts of strange characters, and is lead on a fateful journey with lots of unexpected twists. Again, we won’t go into who, or why for the sake of spoilers. Suffice to say, the ideas, emotion and sense of righteousness flow, stirred up in the mix of constant moments of humour, some that land, some that don’t quite, at a pace fitting, and demanded, by young audiences. The ultimate aim being to reveal the truth behind the family story and to allow the dead to be remembered for their real worth.
On the negatives first: it is all pitched at quite a young audience, in the same way one of Pixar’s less successful films, Cars, is. Which means a lot of the humour lacks the sophistication needed to make it a classic. Also, for a film about the love and joy of music, the songs are only OK, and not especially memorable, although the Oscar winning main theme “Remember Me” serves its purpose very well in the climax. There are also one or two dips in the pacing of scenes that break the spell; surely the cornerstone rule of animated films: don’t drop the ball! Something both Wall-E and Up do at points, spoiling the overall impression of something so glorious in their best moments.
The power of Grandmas
To be more positive, we have to acknowledge the very, very high bar that Pixar set themselves. From an animation point of view, if this film had been released in 2001, we’d be in raptures about it! It is beautiful to look at! And the attention to detail is extraordinary, allowing for many re-watches, just to see the things they have put in there to largely amuse themselves. As a vision of an idea brought to life it is a consummate success! It is, essentially, so likeable. And at its heart, once again, right on the money.
It isn’t called Miguel. It isn’t called The Day of the Dead. It is called Coco. And by the end, you realise why that is important. Death is sad. Dementia is also an awful, awful thing. The strength of Coco is taking these difficult subjects and shining a meaningful light on them, that not only comments intelligently on them, but breaks the heart with the truth of it all. It takes a while to get there with this one, but the pay-off is sublime, yet again! Remember me, a simple sentiment that goes a long, long way!
As a side note, there is a controversial, but massively effective medical technique being utilised in the real world, with alzheimers sufferers, that uses music to trigger memory. It’s application and results are astonishing, for their ability to bring people “back to life”. Which, naturally, moved me immensely. To think the best moment of Coco isn’t just wish fulfilment in a sentimental world, but a real thing that can be done!
Sentimentality aside, Coco is a good film, in every sense of the word. As a parent, I would revel in the opportunity to show this to a child, for the positive conversations it might invoke. The aspects of cinema magic needed to make it an experience worth having are all there. To fault it is only to be unnecessarily picky. Better to go on the journey and enjoy it for what it is. Which, increasingly, is my mantra for watching anything. Who would not hope that someone chooses to celebrate life, with the thought “Remember Me”?
Also, for every good one there are several really lame ones, designed to get families into cinemas and take their money without much concession to a good script. It only takes the bad experience of a couple of those to put you off the genre as an adult. It can be hard to remember that some are made only with 6 year olds in mind. Frozen, for example. They have their place, and the phenomenon of which ones kids are drawn to is a different study altogether. For the purposes of my list, I am looking for the ones that can entertain young and older audiences at the same time. And, to date, no one has done that better than Pixar.
The benchmark, for me, remains Monsters Inc, The Incredibles and the Toy Story series. The latter especially, have a great knack of pleasing all generations. The key is always the writing. Animation styles and techniques can impress the eye, but it is always the theme, the relationships and the words that make an animated film enduring. Music also plays a big part; as does the level of humour. Both incredibly intangible arts that you can’t just buy.
I watched Coco on a Sunday morning – the perfect time to watch an animated film, by law! Chances are you will be a little hungover (I was) and susceptible to the inevitable sentimentality you are about to experience. The first thing that struck me was the colours! Embracing a Latin American cultural canvas, I don’t think I have ever seen such a vivid rainbow attacking my senses. From the naked flames of the candles, to the warm tones of the sunlight and the almost neon glow on display around the dead and the world of the afterlife, it was a visual treat I can honestly say I have never experienced before.
Oh, yes, Coco is about dying, if you didn’t know! And to say more about the genius of their approach to it, would be classed as a spoiler! The action takes place on Diá de Muertos (the day of the dead), when family members can revisit their loved ones, as long as they have been remembered. Our hero, young Miguel, loves music. But his family have banned him from listening to, or playing, it because of the shame surrounding a long dead ancestor. The magic of the day leads him to the underworld of the dead, to find out the truth and save the day.
Of course, once there, he meets all sorts of strange characters, and is lead on a fateful journey with lots of unexpected twists. Again, we won’t go into who, or why for the sake of spoilers. Suffice to say, the ideas, emotion and sense of righteousness flow, stirred up in the mix of constant moments of humour, some that land, some that don’t quite, at a pace fitting, and demanded, by young audiences. The ultimate aim being to reveal the truth behind the family story and to allow the dead to be remembered for their real worth.
On the negatives first: it is all pitched at quite a young audience, in the same way one of Pixar’s less successful films, Cars, is. Which means a lot of the humour lacks the sophistication needed to make it a classic. Also, for a film about the love and joy of music, the songs are only OK, and not especially memorable, although the Oscar winning main theme “Remember Me” serves its purpose very well in the climax. There are also one or two dips in the pacing of scenes that break the spell; surely the cornerstone rule of animated films: don’t drop the ball! Something both Wall-E and Up do at points, spoiling the overall impression of something so glorious in their best moments.
The power of Grandmas
To be more positive, we have to acknowledge the very, very high bar that Pixar set themselves. From an animation point of view, if this film had been released in 2001, we’d be in raptures about it! It is beautiful to look at! And the attention to detail is extraordinary, allowing for many re-watches, just to see the things they have put in there to largely amuse themselves. As a vision of an idea brought to life it is a consummate success! It is, essentially, so likeable. And at its heart, once again, right on the money.
It isn’t called Miguel. It isn’t called The Day of the Dead. It is called Coco. And by the end, you realise why that is important. Death is sad. Dementia is also an awful, awful thing. The strength of Coco is taking these difficult subjects and shining a meaningful light on them, that not only comments intelligently on them, but breaks the heart with the truth of it all. It takes a while to get there with this one, but the pay-off is sublime, yet again! Remember me, a simple sentiment that goes a long, long way!
As a side note, there is a controversial, but massively effective medical technique being utilised in the real world, with alzheimers sufferers, that uses music to trigger memory. It’s application and results are astonishing, for their ability to bring people “back to life”. Which, naturally, moved me immensely. To think the best moment of Coco isn’t just wish fulfilment in a sentimental world, but a real thing that can be done!
Sentimentality aside, Coco is a good film, in every sense of the word. As a parent, I would revel in the opportunity to show this to a child, for the positive conversations it might invoke. The aspects of cinema magic needed to make it an experience worth having are all there. To fault it is only to be unnecessarily picky. Better to go on the journey and enjoy it for what it is. Which, increasingly, is my mantra for watching anything. Who would not hope that someone chooses to celebrate life, with the thought “Remember Me”?
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated One Last Stop in Books
Jun 3, 2021
A dazzling, heartfelt queer romance
August Landry moves to New York City, just another stop among many in her quest to prove that she's fine being alone. Everything she owns fits in five boxes, and she sleeps on an inflatable mattress. She belongs nowhere and needs no one. But NYC feels different to August: her diverse group of roommates, who adopt her immediately; her job at an all-night pancake diner; and the subway. Because the subway brings Jane: beautiful, enigmatic, leather jacket-clad Jane. Then August realizes something; Jane is always on the subway because she has to be. She's trapped and displaced in time from the 1970s. It seems as if August--and her new band of friends--may be the only one to save her. Can August believe in something, someone, enough to free Jane?
"Truth is, when you spend your whole life alone, it's incredibly appealing to move somewhere big enough to get lost in, where being alone looks like a choice."
I've put off writing this review because it's hard to see how I can do McQuiston's beautiful romance any justice. This book is such a romantic, sexy, and heartwarming read. August is an excellent character. She's spent most of her life in her uncle's shadow, working with her mother to try to solve his missing person's case. August eventually declared herself done--done searching, done with mysteries. But then this beautiful woman appears on the subway, and she offers the biggest mystery of all to August. Why is Jane stuck on the subway and how can August help?
"And she can't believe Jane had the nerve, the audacity, to become the one thing August can't resist: a mystery."
McQuiston gives us the most amazing, diverse queer novel one could ever wish for. August is bi and Jane basically every lesbian's dream. It's impossible not to fall in love with this gorgeous Asian subway vision. Even better, through Jane and other events, it's a tribute to those who came before our generation. Jane was a (incredibly sexy) activist / riot girl in the 1970s, yet is shocked that you can typically be openly gay on the subway now. She comes to everyone's defense there. She's amazing. As for August's roommates, they are beautiful and diverse, including trans and gay characters, with the lovely Myla taking care of the group. There are several drag queens given legitimate, true storylines. To say how meaningful this is to the queer community--it's hard to even explain. All of these characters--roommates Myla, her boyfriend, Niko, and Wes; neighbor Isaiah; coworkers Lucie and Winfield--are real and treated with care. They are funny, flawed, and create the most amazing found family ever.
"Jane doesn't age. She's magnetic and charming and gorgeous. She... kind of lives underground."
As for August and Jane, this is a romance for the ages. This book is swoony and sexy. It will make you laugh; it will make you cry. McQuiston has written a lesbian character for us lesbians to ogle for years to come, and a romance to stack all other romances against. It's funny and heartwarming. There's magic and mystery. There's pancakes. It's a beautiful ode to New York City, the subway, and falling in love. There's seriously nothing not to love.
So yes, I loved this book. I love McQuiston's way with words--the humor, the romance, the way she allows the queer community to have meaningful love stories in our world. This book is flowing with passion, with beauty, and magic. 4.5+ stars.
"Truth is, when you spend your whole life alone, it's incredibly appealing to move somewhere big enough to get lost in, where being alone looks like a choice."
I've put off writing this review because it's hard to see how I can do McQuiston's beautiful romance any justice. This book is such a romantic, sexy, and heartwarming read. August is an excellent character. She's spent most of her life in her uncle's shadow, working with her mother to try to solve his missing person's case. August eventually declared herself done--done searching, done with mysteries. But then this beautiful woman appears on the subway, and she offers the biggest mystery of all to August. Why is Jane stuck on the subway and how can August help?
"And she can't believe Jane had the nerve, the audacity, to become the one thing August can't resist: a mystery."
McQuiston gives us the most amazing, diverse queer novel one could ever wish for. August is bi and Jane basically every lesbian's dream. It's impossible not to fall in love with this gorgeous Asian subway vision. Even better, through Jane and other events, it's a tribute to those who came before our generation. Jane was a (incredibly sexy) activist / riot girl in the 1970s, yet is shocked that you can typically be openly gay on the subway now. She comes to everyone's defense there. She's amazing. As for August's roommates, they are beautiful and diverse, including trans and gay characters, with the lovely Myla taking care of the group. There are several drag queens given legitimate, true storylines. To say how meaningful this is to the queer community--it's hard to even explain. All of these characters--roommates Myla, her boyfriend, Niko, and Wes; neighbor Isaiah; coworkers Lucie and Winfield--are real and treated with care. They are funny, flawed, and create the most amazing found family ever.
"Jane doesn't age. She's magnetic and charming and gorgeous. She... kind of lives underground."
As for August and Jane, this is a romance for the ages. This book is swoony and sexy. It will make you laugh; it will make you cry. McQuiston has written a lesbian character for us lesbians to ogle for years to come, and a romance to stack all other romances against. It's funny and heartwarming. There's magic and mystery. There's pancakes. It's a beautiful ode to New York City, the subway, and falling in love. There's seriously nothing not to love.
So yes, I loved this book. I love McQuiston's way with words--the humor, the romance, the way she allows the queer community to have meaningful love stories in our world. This book is flowing with passion, with beauty, and magic. 4.5+ stars.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Godzilla's gigantic scale is impressive. (1 more)
Bryan Cranston gives a terrific performance.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a horribly lifeless protagonist. (2 more)
The film repeatedly obscures our chances to see Godzilla or cuts away from him completely.
There seems to be very little sense of panic or concern despite Godzilla and MUTO's destruction.
As promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 version.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the original Godzilla film, when the King of the Monsters first emerged from the Pacific and terrorized Tokyo, Japan. Roughly 10 years after America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, Godzilla was artistically created to be a physical, living representation of the destructive force of those bombs. Even the texture of his skin is modelled after keloid scars, which were found on survivors as a result of the radiation. Godzilla’s arrival and subsequent attacks were spurred by the use of nuclear weapons, and he as a character wholly embodies the consequences of nuclear warfare.
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
Christina Haynes (148 KP) rated The Hazel Wood in Books
Feb 24, 2018 (Updated Feb 24, 2018)
The Hazel Wood
The Hazel Wood
By Melissa Albert
Review: Christina Haynes
Have you ever wanted to go into the world of fairytales. To see their stories unfold, to learn more about them and not just through the pages of a book?
Alice used to want to know more about them. When your Grandmother is the famous author of the ‘Hinterland’. A world where Fairytales are dark like the story of ‘Alice three times’ of course you would want to know more. Especially when you haven’t met the woman and your mother never talks about her.
But when you do finally enter the Hinderland you see that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.
Alice and her mother Ella have been on the run all of Alice’s life. Ella grew up on fairytales and Alice grew up on highways. They have both been running from this bad luck that always seems to follow them wherever they go. Which Ella believes comes from her mother, Althea.
Althea Properpine was traveling with a man and when their affair ended she vanished. Alike with Agatha Christie, she returned and no one knew where she had been. Unlike Agatha she remembered – she was in the Hinterland. A place where her stories began.
Althea’s books cannot be found anywhere, she has a huge fan base who never reveal the pages of her book. Everything about her is a mystery, even her home, The Hazel Wood.
Her only known interview was with Vanity Fair and even then no one could say where she lived. Her first husband Ella’s father died when she was young, she then married Greek royalty and then vanished to her home at The Hazel Wood. At eighteen Ella left home with her baby Alice and never stopped running.
One day Ella receives a letter in the post informing her of Althea’s death. To which Ella believes is a miracle, because now her bad luck won’t exist. So she marries and settles down, creates a home they both longed for. Until one day, the bad luck finds them and Ella is taken away, by the Hinterland. Ella leaves Alice a message “STAY AWAY FROM THE HAZEL WOOD” This is the start of the Fairytale that Alice joins.
Alice seeks the help of a boy at school, Ellery Finch who is a super fan of Althea and her stories. Together they travel to where The Hazel Wood is. But is Ellery a friend or just a super fan.
“Look until the leaves turn red, sew the worlds up with thread. If your journey’s left undone, fear the rising of the sun.”
4 ☕ – I REALLY LIKED IT
Love, Christina ?
By Melissa Albert
Review: Christina Haynes
Have you ever wanted to go into the world of fairytales. To see their stories unfold, to learn more about them and not just through the pages of a book?
Alice used to want to know more about them. When your Grandmother is the famous author of the ‘Hinterland’. A world where Fairytales are dark like the story of ‘Alice three times’ of course you would want to know more. Especially when you haven’t met the woman and your mother never talks about her.
But when you do finally enter the Hinderland you see that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.
Alice and her mother Ella have been on the run all of Alice’s life. Ella grew up on fairytales and Alice grew up on highways. They have both been running from this bad luck that always seems to follow them wherever they go. Which Ella believes comes from her mother, Althea.
Althea Properpine was traveling with a man and when their affair ended she vanished. Alike with Agatha Christie, she returned and no one knew where she had been. Unlike Agatha she remembered – she was in the Hinterland. A place where her stories began.
Althea’s books cannot be found anywhere, she has a huge fan base who never reveal the pages of her book. Everything about her is a mystery, even her home, The Hazel Wood.
Her only known interview was with Vanity Fair and even then no one could say where she lived. Her first husband Ella’s father died when she was young, she then married Greek royalty and then vanished to her home at The Hazel Wood. At eighteen Ella left home with her baby Alice and never stopped running.
One day Ella receives a letter in the post informing her of Althea’s death. To which Ella believes is a miracle, because now her bad luck won’t exist. So she marries and settles down, creates a home they both longed for. Until one day, the bad luck finds them and Ella is taken away, by the Hinterland. Ella leaves Alice a message “STAY AWAY FROM THE HAZEL WOOD” This is the start of the Fairytale that Alice joins.
Alice seeks the help of a boy at school, Ellery Finch who is a super fan of Althea and her stories. Together they travel to where The Hazel Wood is. But is Ellery a friend or just a super fan.
“Look until the leaves turn red, sew the worlds up with thread. If your journey’s left undone, fear the rising of the sun.”
4 ☕ – I REALLY LIKED IT
Love, Christina ?
Winmau Darts Scorer
Sports and Utilities
App
Get the best selling Darts Scorer on the App Store for around the average price of a pint! 5 Star...