Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Unlocked (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
London Has Fallen, but good
Every year it happens, a big blockbuster comes along and absolutely obliterates the competition at the box office. This year, that award has gone to the much-hyped and slightly disappointing Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2.
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
Origen: A True Story Of Evil
Peter J. Perry and Kathleen Sumpton
8.0
Rate It
Book
Have you ever come face to face with the devil? In a tapestry of sports, business, and dating, there...
True Crime
I first learned about you, Joe, when I sat one Sunday morning on Netflix and I could not keep my eyes off of the promo for this show about you fixating on a blonde woman. Naturally, I was intrigued and I had to learn about you, Joe, and how exactly you could see stalking as a way of getting close to someone and love them. I do wish you hadn't been a manager at a bookstore, Joe. I'm a booknerd, it was difficult to not like you, most of the time.
I watched your story and then I listened to your story. Joe, there are quite a few differences between the BookJoe and the NetflixJoe. Either way, Joe, I judge you harshly at each passing moment when you follow this girl, Guinevere Beck (can we just laugh at the irony that her name is Guinevere? If you haven't read King Author, you should) or stalk her using her old phone that she believed lost.
Just a little nit pick on my part, Netflix, Android and Apple DO NOT use the same cloud! They are ENTIRELY different companies with entirely different hardware. There was no way, NetflixJoe, that you could have seen the woman's emails or texts from an Android phone when she got a new phone that is an Apple. Rant over, now back to you, Joe.
BookJoe is more wordy and more story telling. Perhaps your warped mind may have believed Guinevere (Beck in both stories) might have flirted with you. This begs the question, what made her stand out from any other WOMAN who doesn't wear a bra (and don't state that you can't tell because you point that out about Beck every chance you got)? It couldn't have been the books she purchased as how you mentally made fun of the fact that she bought a certain book because the author was a relative of a celebrity.
I'll give you credit, NetflixJoe, while NetflixBeck was still a bit off with her procrastination and her obsessiveness with a crack head and drinking, she still grew some character and made for someone with potential. BookBeck, on the other hand, BookJoe, you really could have picked a much better person to stalk.
BookBeck is highly ditzy, a pushover, loves to drink (a lot!), and prefers casual encounters (which you found that out by going through her email) with other men, except you! She claims she wants to write, yet spends little if any time doing it, and while you do somewhat encourage her, it doesn't work. She just wants to say she wants to write, but not do it. And when she does write, and BookJoe you have stated this a little annoyance before, it's pure pornography.
BookJoe, I often pitied you because you are highly intelligent yet so stupid. BookBeck was all wrong for you and you spent all this time trying to make her right and doing it all the wrong way. Oh, Joe, you just couldn't take it. And you couldn't see it. So stupid, Joe.
Okay, as fun as that was, here's the remainder of the review without me talking to Joe. The show on Netflix was so hard to turn off because it was that intense. No, I DO NOT ship Beck and Joe. HE IS STILL A STALKER!! The show really showed that even the people who seem all nice and laid back CAN BE THE PERSON THAT IS DANGEROUS! The book does the same thing as well.
In the book, it's all told in Joe's point of view, and he could very well be not a very reliable narrator. All of it is told from what he sees and sometimes what he wishes he could see. At least on Netflix, though Joe narrates mostly, you're able to see the evidence instead of going off by his word. He also gives off of how delusional he really is when it comes to Beck. He makes himself BELIEVE that Beck is just suffering from daddy issues with all these men and he can help her and make her only want him.
The story itself was really well put together. The book will definitely not give you the shipping feels like Netflix seems to do for some people. Most of the time, I do just say out loud how stupid Joe really is and how he maybe he should move on. I wasn't lying when I said BookBeck was all those things. She really was. I actually did not like her character at all. To me, there wasn't much growth except for small things here and there, but for the most part, she just remained this person who had daddy issues and tried to do everything she could to NOT write. I'll give her credit for finding out about Joe and trying to figure out how to get away, but that's about it.
The show is a great watch cause the story is pretty good. If you want to see everything and not go by Joe, watch the show first. If you are curious as to how BookJoe started and became NetflixJoe, read this book first. Do you think he's a reliable narrator?
I have to point out the similarities with these characters that of King Arthur, however. I mentioned that earlier because Beck's first name is Guinevere. Think about it (if you've read King Arthur when you were in school).
Joe is Arthur - he manages a bookstore and reads. He fixates himself on a woman who apparently is so enchanting that he must have her no matter what.
Benji in retrospect is Merlin - He may be hooked on drugs and a total douche, but he WARNS Joe about Beck and that she is indeed crazy and not faithful. Joe does NOT listen.
Dr. Nicky is Lancelot - he is a therapist to both Joe and Beck (separately and without the other knowing) and he tries to guide Joe through his therapy, but in the end, he falls for Beck and they have an affair.
Beck IS GUINEVERE - Not at all the person she appears to be for Joe and winds up being entirely unfaithful and suffers for it.
**I haven't figured out Peach, but she's just crazy**
It is a two part series - I need a break from Joe before I think about reading the second book.
I watched your story and then I listened to your story. Joe, there are quite a few differences between the BookJoe and the NetflixJoe. Either way, Joe, I judge you harshly at each passing moment when you follow this girl, Guinevere Beck (can we just laugh at the irony that her name is Guinevere? If you haven't read King Author, you should) or stalk her using her old phone that she believed lost.
Just a little nit pick on my part, Netflix, Android and Apple DO NOT use the same cloud! They are ENTIRELY different companies with entirely different hardware. There was no way, NetflixJoe, that you could have seen the woman's emails or texts from an Android phone when she got a new phone that is an Apple. Rant over, now back to you, Joe.
BookJoe is more wordy and more story telling. Perhaps your warped mind may have believed Guinevere (Beck in both stories) might have flirted with you. This begs the question, what made her stand out from any other WOMAN who doesn't wear a bra (and don't state that you can't tell because you point that out about Beck every chance you got)? It couldn't have been the books she purchased as how you mentally made fun of the fact that she bought a certain book because the author was a relative of a celebrity.
I'll give you credit, NetflixJoe, while NetflixBeck was still a bit off with her procrastination and her obsessiveness with a crack head and drinking, she still grew some character and made for someone with potential. BookBeck, on the other hand, BookJoe, you really could have picked a much better person to stalk.
BookBeck is highly ditzy, a pushover, loves to drink (a lot!), and prefers casual encounters (which you found that out by going through her email) with other men, except you! She claims she wants to write, yet spends little if any time doing it, and while you do somewhat encourage her, it doesn't work. She just wants to say she wants to write, but not do it. And when she does write, and BookJoe you have stated this a little annoyance before, it's pure pornography.
BookJoe, I often pitied you because you are highly intelligent yet so stupid. BookBeck was all wrong for you and you spent all this time trying to make her right and doing it all the wrong way. Oh, Joe, you just couldn't take it. And you couldn't see it. So stupid, Joe.
Okay, as fun as that was, here's the remainder of the review without me talking to Joe. The show on Netflix was so hard to turn off because it was that intense. No, I DO NOT ship Beck and Joe. HE IS STILL A STALKER!! The show really showed that even the people who seem all nice and laid back CAN BE THE PERSON THAT IS DANGEROUS! The book does the same thing as well.
In the book, it's all told in Joe's point of view, and he could very well be not a very reliable narrator. All of it is told from what he sees and sometimes what he wishes he could see. At least on Netflix, though Joe narrates mostly, you're able to see the evidence instead of going off by his word. He also gives off of how delusional he really is when it comes to Beck. He makes himself BELIEVE that Beck is just suffering from daddy issues with all these men and he can help her and make her only want him.
The story itself was really well put together. The book will definitely not give you the shipping feels like Netflix seems to do for some people. Most of the time, I do just say out loud how stupid Joe really is and how he maybe he should move on. I wasn't lying when I said BookBeck was all those things. She really was. I actually did not like her character at all. To me, there wasn't much growth except for small things here and there, but for the most part, she just remained this person who had daddy issues and tried to do everything she could to NOT write. I'll give her credit for finding out about Joe and trying to figure out how to get away, but that's about it.
The show is a great watch cause the story is pretty good. If you want to see everything and not go by Joe, watch the show first. If you are curious as to how BookJoe started and became NetflixJoe, read this book first. Do you think he's a reliable narrator?
I have to point out the similarities with these characters that of King Arthur, however. I mentioned that earlier because Beck's first name is Guinevere. Think about it (if you've read King Arthur when you were in school).
Joe is Arthur - he manages a bookstore and reads. He fixates himself on a woman who apparently is so enchanting that he must have her no matter what.
Benji in retrospect is Merlin - He may be hooked on drugs and a total douche, but he WARNS Joe about Beck and that she is indeed crazy and not faithful. Joe does NOT listen.
Dr. Nicky is Lancelot - he is a therapist to both Joe and Beck (separately and without the other knowing) and he tries to guide Joe through his therapy, but in the end, he falls for Beck and they have an affair.
Beck IS GUINEVERE - Not at all the person she appears to be for Joe and winds up being entirely unfaithful and suffers for it.
**I haven't figured out Peach, but she's just crazy**
It is a two part series - I need a break from Joe before I think about reading the second book.
Amanda (96 KP) rated This Adventure Ends in Books
Mar 12, 2019
"They never really say that they love each other, but it's so freaking obvious. Like, Sherlock would straight up kill for Watson.
This is the second book I've read by Emma Mills. The first one was Foolish Hearts. I never did write a review about it, except on my Instagram. It was one of the first boxes I got from OwlCrate and I was excited cause the story was so interesting and the cover was gorgeous. This cover is, of course, gorgeous as well.
Sloane moves to a new place and doesn't have a problem around people, nor does she have a problem confronting a douche being a douche at a party. Unfortunately, when she did that, the guy whom douche was being a douche to, didn't appreciate it. I always wondered WHY it's such a bad thing with a woman/girl comes to a guy's aid. Sure, they 'got it covered' but still. I wonder what exactly started as it being 'weak' or 'embarrassing' if a woman stood up for someone, even if it was a guy. Just saying.
Sloane is sarcastic, laid back, and sometimes a bit off putting when she uses humor to deflect from a serious situation, or a situation that seems to get serious. I adored her, however. One of the things that killed me was that she didn't realize, or acknowledge, that people did genuinely like her.
I just ADORED each character in this book. Vera and her twin brother, Gabe, were one of the first people she meets at that party. Gabe is a bit put off by her because, as a guy, he didn't like that she stood up to the douche who was being a douche to him. Vera is absolutely lovable and kind of adopts Sloane into their little circle of friends. Vera is a passionate character and even I was immediately drawn to her and would totally come out of my introvert shell to hang with her if she simply asked.
"We should all find something to be weirdly passionate about, don't you think?"
I loved the relationship (platonic) between Sloane and Frank. He doesn't have a HUGE part in the book, but he was so much fun to read. We should all have a Frank in our lives! Sloane's father is an author who is struggling with writers block, but becomes with a show called WereSchool and starts writing fanfics. The show is a school for different kind of creatures like werewolves, vampires, ghosts...
"Mermaids aren't real in the WereSchool canon."
I'm sorry but how can all the others exist and NOT mermaids!
The story centers around the twins' mother passing away but their father gave away a good chunk of her paintings. One in particular called The Dream, so Sloane literally goes out of her way to try to track down this painting so she could bring it back to them. Sloane does this as a way to really express herself, because not everybody is great with words - even if your father is a best selling author.
"All epic quest start somewhere, right?"
The story is a great journey with Sloane and even though she can be frustrating, simple friendships and compassion break through that wall eventually. This is only the second novel that I've read by Emma Mills, but right now, I'd rank this to be the top one I like the most, so far. I have her recent novel on my to be read list, but I don't have a copy of it just yet. If anything, it would be just to read about Frank and then Vera.
I only have one slight complaint. The constant use of the word 'like' was getting a bit old. I'm sure that's how some teenagers still talk these days (lord knows I did when I was younger), but I started to hate that word. That's all.
If you haven't read a book by Mills yet, I'd start with this one. Foolish Hearts is also a great novel, but this would be the one I would recommend first.
This is the second book I've read by Emma Mills. The first one was Foolish Hearts. I never did write a review about it, except on my Instagram. It was one of the first boxes I got from OwlCrate and I was excited cause the story was so interesting and the cover was gorgeous. This cover is, of course, gorgeous as well.
Sloane moves to a new place and doesn't have a problem around people, nor does she have a problem confronting a douche being a douche at a party. Unfortunately, when she did that, the guy whom douche was being a douche to, didn't appreciate it. I always wondered WHY it's such a bad thing with a woman/girl comes to a guy's aid. Sure, they 'got it covered' but still. I wonder what exactly started as it being 'weak' or 'embarrassing' if a woman stood up for someone, even if it was a guy. Just saying.
Sloane is sarcastic, laid back, and sometimes a bit off putting when she uses humor to deflect from a serious situation, or a situation that seems to get serious. I adored her, however. One of the things that killed me was that she didn't realize, or acknowledge, that people did genuinely like her.
I just ADORED each character in this book. Vera and her twin brother, Gabe, were one of the first people she meets at that party. Gabe is a bit put off by her because, as a guy, he didn't like that she stood up to the douche who was being a douche to him. Vera is absolutely lovable and kind of adopts Sloane into their little circle of friends. Vera is a passionate character and even I was immediately drawn to her and would totally come out of my introvert shell to hang with her if she simply asked.
"We should all find something to be weirdly passionate about, don't you think?"
I loved the relationship (platonic) between Sloane and Frank. He doesn't have a HUGE part in the book, but he was so much fun to read. We should all have a Frank in our lives! Sloane's father is an author who is struggling with writers block, but becomes with a show called WereSchool and starts writing fanfics. The show is a school for different kind of creatures like werewolves, vampires, ghosts...
"Mermaids aren't real in the WereSchool canon."
I'm sorry but how can all the others exist and NOT mermaids!
The story centers around the twins' mother passing away but their father gave away a good chunk of her paintings. One in particular called The Dream, so Sloane literally goes out of her way to try to track down this painting so she could bring it back to them. Sloane does this as a way to really express herself, because not everybody is great with words - even if your father is a best selling author.
"All epic quest start somewhere, right?"
The story is a great journey with Sloane and even though she can be frustrating, simple friendships and compassion break through that wall eventually. This is only the second novel that I've read by Emma Mills, but right now, I'd rank this to be the top one I like the most, so far. I have her recent novel on my to be read list, but I don't have a copy of it just yet. If anything, it would be just to read about Frank and then Vera.
I only have one slight complaint. The constant use of the word 'like' was getting a bit old. I'm sure that's how some teenagers still talk these days (lord knows I did when I was younger), but I started to hate that word. That's all.
If you haven't read a book by Mills yet, I'd start with this one. Foolish Hearts is also a great novel, but this would be the one I would recommend first.
Mariafrancesca (30 KP) rated The Demon’s surrendee (Demon’s Lexicon #3) in Books
Apr 7, 2019
This is a review for the whole series
I read these books because a friend of mine suggested them and she enjoyed them very much. I really like Sarah Rees Brennan style, it is funny and engaging and I really couldn't put these books down. However the end of this trilogy makes me angry, there are so many problems with it that I don't know where to start. I apologise in advance for the mistakes in this review, I am not a native speaker so please be patient.
The Disney happy ending: I don't want to comment the fact that everyone gets paired off here, but what about the magicians? In this book the magicians are evil, they kill people, they are addicted to power, the lousy solution they found through Jamie it's not solid. What happens when Jamie dies? When Nick dies? It can last for 50-60 years, what then? This magicians are not vampires that can drink animal blood, they are addicts that need to kill people in order to have power, this solution is just temporary and I cannot see another way to make it happens afterwards, unless they start to sacrifice babies that is even worse. Moreover they unleash 2 demons on Earth (the most irresponsible and incoherent thing they can do after 3 books of saying how they are pure evil) and the only explanation we get is "winning a war comes with a price"
Diversity: the way diversity is treated in this book is ridiculous. She throws in some black or gay character, family problems, a past of abuses and then she uses them to makes the white rich kids shine. I will talk about Sin in a minute, but what about Seb? He could have been such a precious character instead you see him as bully, then as the magicians' pet, then he gets to date the boy he always loved in secret, after he bullied him for years, just because he's the only gay character still available
All that is wrong with Sin:
The Character: Sin is a strong teenage girl who had a tough life but she has always worked hard to achieve her goal: become the leader of a place that she loves deeply, understands deeply and where she spent her entire life. And when a tourist threats to get the position instead, she is the first to recognise that this girl who has been at the Goblin Market 4 times is better than her in everything. Sin doesn't simply fail, she surrenders to the fact that Mae's is better than her and she just let her have the Market. Sin, that should be the main character of the third book, stays a secondary character with no development other than getting rid of a stupid superstition about limping guys and getting a boyfriend.
Point of view: although I enjoyed Sin's POV far more than Mae's, I can't see the reason of this choice. The previous POV where of main characters who were actually living the situation and acting in the situation. In here Sin, instead of becoming a main character, spends more than half of the book overhearing conversations (with her supernatural hearing) and following Mae's plans. Again, it seems they wanted to show off about the diversity inside this book and instead it results in a joke. Alan's POV, or Jamie's, would have been so much better.
All that is wrong with Mae:
I am not a fan of Mae, I couldn't stand her form the beginning. I don't want to get started on this because I could talk about it for hours but to summarise my opinion, I think that author wanted to go for a character very much like Hermione but much more popular and cool. The problem is that Hermione, even though she is smart and talented, succeeds in everything she does because she works very hard to get there she sacrifice herself for a greater cause, and she has flow and doubts as every teenager. Mae succeeds in everything without any particular reason, she is just lucky and most of the time she doesn't deserve what she gets.
Last but not lest: COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW ON EARTH A DEMON AND A HUMAN GIRL GET TOGETHER?????
The Disney happy ending: I don't want to comment the fact that everyone gets paired off here, but what about the magicians? In this book the magicians are evil, they kill people, they are addicted to power, the lousy solution they found through Jamie it's not solid. What happens when Jamie dies? When Nick dies? It can last for 50-60 years, what then? This magicians are not vampires that can drink animal blood, they are addicts that need to kill people in order to have power, this solution is just temporary and I cannot see another way to make it happens afterwards, unless they start to sacrifice babies that is even worse. Moreover they unleash 2 demons on Earth (the most irresponsible and incoherent thing they can do after 3 books of saying how they are pure evil) and the only explanation we get is "winning a war comes with a price"
Diversity: the way diversity is treated in this book is ridiculous. She throws in some black or gay character, family problems, a past of abuses and then she uses them to makes the white rich kids shine. I will talk about Sin in a minute, but what about Seb? He could have been such a precious character instead you see him as bully, then as the magicians' pet, then he gets to date the boy he always loved in secret, after he bullied him for years, just because he's the only gay character still available
All that is wrong with Sin:
The Character: Sin is a strong teenage girl who had a tough life but she has always worked hard to achieve her goal: become the leader of a place that she loves deeply, understands deeply and where she spent her entire life. And when a tourist threats to get the position instead, she is the first to recognise that this girl who has been at the Goblin Market 4 times is better than her in everything. Sin doesn't simply fail, she surrenders to the fact that Mae's is better than her and she just let her have the Market. Sin, that should be the main character of the third book, stays a secondary character with no development other than getting rid of a stupid superstition about limping guys and getting a boyfriend.
Point of view: although I enjoyed Sin's POV far more than Mae's, I can't see the reason of this choice. The previous POV where of main characters who were actually living the situation and acting in the situation. In here Sin, instead of becoming a main character, spends more than half of the book overhearing conversations (with her supernatural hearing) and following Mae's plans. Again, it seems they wanted to show off about the diversity inside this book and instead it results in a joke. Alan's POV, or Jamie's, would have been so much better.
All that is wrong with Mae:
I am not a fan of Mae, I couldn't stand her form the beginning. I don't want to get started on this because I could talk about it for hours but to summarise my opinion, I think that author wanted to go for a character very much like Hermione but much more popular and cool. The problem is that Hermione, even though she is smart and talented, succeeds in everything she does because she works very hard to get there she sacrifice herself for a greater cause, and she has flow and doubts as every teenager. Mae succeeds in everything without any particular reason, she is just lucky and most of the time she doesn't deserve what she gets.
Last but not lest: COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW ON EARTH A DEMON AND A HUMAN GIRL GET TOGETHER?????
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Joker follows Arthur Fleck’s descent from a somewhat mentally troubled comedian to becoming the Joker, arch Batman villain and force for chaos.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Chernobyl in TV
Oct 6, 2019
No words...
Every once in a while, a piece of cinema comes along so profound, epic, chilling, horrible, emotional, disgusting, jarring, magnificent and wondrous it completely takes my breathe away. When I was a child it was films like E.T., Return of the Jedi and Raiders of the lost Ark. Since becoming an adult, it has changed to movies like Schindler's List, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Requiem For A Dream and now Chernobyl.
This five part HBO series not only accounts for the immediate aftermath of the disaster, but shows the relatively unknown sagas of those people who were just doing their jobs not knowing their heroism and ultimate sacrifice probably saved millions of lives and maybe the entire planet Earth.
The men in the control room of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant did not know what just happened. They heard an explosion and then thought there was a fire on the roof of one of the buildings. Residents in the nearly town went out to see the spectacle taking their children and stood on a nearby bridge so they could see. Those men with the local fire department were called in the deal with the fire and quickly arrived to see the devastation they faced. Little did they know most of them were doomed with this assignment.
Soon after, nuclear experts are called in to formulate a plan to not only contain and extinguish the atomic blaze, but also to contain the radiation which the wind is carrying to neighboring countries. Proud Russian state officials also downplay the situation to the rest of the world and are wary to ask for outside assistance not wanting to show weakness.
After the plan to douse the flames in successful a new problem arises. Large water tanks which are supposed to be empty now contain water from the fireman's work which now could cause a nuclear megaton explosion killing millions and laying waste to an entire region of the Earth. A plan is also forged to deal with this new development.
Meanwhile, hospitals overrun with casualties are now forced to deal with unimaginable human suffering from those who took the worst of the radiation. Their agony and torture is some of the worst human suffrage short of war time in the history of the Earth. At the same time, a scientist and nuclear expert speaks with the men near death to assume a timeline and details of what took place during those fateful minutes before the disaster.
The monumental feat this mini-series puts to task is truly astonishing. The technical and historical detail filmmakers took to ensure accuracy is among the most impressive I have ever seen. The European locations used for filming were authentic to the last detail and the style of film was harsh and unrelenting. I watched all 5 episodes straight through as I couldn't wait to get to the next installment. As each ended, I was left with my jaw on the floor is amazement wear tears in my eyes and streaming down my face. Creator/writer Craig Mazin should be commended for his screenplay which is based on quite a lot of first-hand accounts of the situation from people who witnessed it.
Lead actors Jared Harris, Stellan Skarsgård and Emily Watson were all astonishing, especially Harris who portrayed Valery Legasov with such conviction, you as the audience were outraged and sympathetic to his role in this ordeal.
The human suffering portrayed onscreen through the use of remarkable make up effects were so real there were several points I had to stop the film just so I could catch my breath. I was so emotional while watching this masterpiece I feel now like a changed person after just having witnessed something as magic as this perfect piece of filmmaking.
I was so enamored with this production I watched all the making of material afterwards and a documentary about the real events including some of the real graphic patient images that I will never forget.
Hopefully, this will be shown in schools in the future and future generations will continue to learn about the Chernobyl catastrophe as a symbol of human arrogance so that it will never be repeated.
This five part HBO series not only accounts for the immediate aftermath of the disaster, but shows the relatively unknown sagas of those people who were just doing their jobs not knowing their heroism and ultimate sacrifice probably saved millions of lives and maybe the entire planet Earth.
The men in the control room of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant did not know what just happened. They heard an explosion and then thought there was a fire on the roof of one of the buildings. Residents in the nearly town went out to see the spectacle taking their children and stood on a nearby bridge so they could see. Those men with the local fire department were called in the deal with the fire and quickly arrived to see the devastation they faced. Little did they know most of them were doomed with this assignment.
Soon after, nuclear experts are called in to formulate a plan to not only contain and extinguish the atomic blaze, but also to contain the radiation which the wind is carrying to neighboring countries. Proud Russian state officials also downplay the situation to the rest of the world and are wary to ask for outside assistance not wanting to show weakness.
After the plan to douse the flames in successful a new problem arises. Large water tanks which are supposed to be empty now contain water from the fireman's work which now could cause a nuclear megaton explosion killing millions and laying waste to an entire region of the Earth. A plan is also forged to deal with this new development.
Meanwhile, hospitals overrun with casualties are now forced to deal with unimaginable human suffering from those who took the worst of the radiation. Their agony and torture is some of the worst human suffrage short of war time in the history of the Earth. At the same time, a scientist and nuclear expert speaks with the men near death to assume a timeline and details of what took place during those fateful minutes before the disaster.
The monumental feat this mini-series puts to task is truly astonishing. The technical and historical detail filmmakers took to ensure accuracy is among the most impressive I have ever seen. The European locations used for filming were authentic to the last detail and the style of film was harsh and unrelenting. I watched all 5 episodes straight through as I couldn't wait to get to the next installment. As each ended, I was left with my jaw on the floor is amazement wear tears in my eyes and streaming down my face. Creator/writer Craig Mazin should be commended for his screenplay which is based on quite a lot of first-hand accounts of the situation from people who witnessed it.
Lead actors Jared Harris, Stellan Skarsgård and Emily Watson were all astonishing, especially Harris who portrayed Valery Legasov with such conviction, you as the audience were outraged and sympathetic to his role in this ordeal.
The human suffering portrayed onscreen through the use of remarkable make up effects were so real there were several points I had to stop the film just so I could catch my breath. I was so emotional while watching this masterpiece I feel now like a changed person after just having witnessed something as magic as this perfect piece of filmmaking.
I was so enamored with this production I watched all the making of material afterwards and a documentary about the real events including some of the real graphic patient images that I will never forget.
Hopefully, this will be shown in schools in the future and future generations will continue to learn about the Chernobyl catastrophe as a symbol of human arrogance so that it will never be repeated.
Rachel (48 KP) rated Exonerated: A History of the Innocence Movement in Books
May 25, 2017
Such a Disappointment
I had very high hopes for this book, it is a fascinating subject, but sadly it did not live up to expectations at all.
Halfway through the introduction I realised just how dry it was going to be. I recognised the structure of it from my university essays. When an introduction includes a brief synopsis of the chapters to come it is obviously good to be more of an academic study than a book you can sit down and get lost in!
And so it continued. Far too much time is dedicated to very dry details. For example, 10 pages are dedicated to a conference held in 1998 called The National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty. Obviously this is an extremely important cause but it could either have been explained in 2 - 3 pages maximum or a lot more details about the exoneree's could have been added. This is actually the problem through out the book. Details of the exoneration's are sparse, usually with as little detail as "he was exonerated by DNA".
When the author, rarely, tells the story of someone he really comes to life. He has a voice that can put across the suffering and circustance of a person in a very warm and interesting way. Had there been more of that writing it could have been a spectacular book.
As the book was about the Innocence Movement itself I was not expecting some true crime book but, had the dates and figures been interspersed with case studies it would have been great. It would have been nice to know exactly how someone was wrongfully imprisoned and how they were exonerated. Had this been the case I would have given a much higher rating.
The author himself calls this work a study. Unless this book is to be marketed solely for academic purposes, which I am sure it isn't, then it should not BE a study. It should be an accessible book for all people interested in the subject to enjoy.
The author is obviously very passionate about this subject - hence 2 stars instead of 1 - yet passion alone does not make a book good.
Halfway through the introduction I realised just how dry it was going to be. I recognised the structure of it from my university essays. When an introduction includes a brief synopsis of the chapters to come it is obviously good to be more of an academic study than a book you can sit down and get lost in!
And so it continued. Far too much time is dedicated to very dry details. For example, 10 pages are dedicated to a conference held in 1998 called The National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty. Obviously this is an extremely important cause but it could either have been explained in 2 - 3 pages maximum or a lot more details about the exoneree's could have been added. This is actually the problem through out the book. Details of the exoneration's are sparse, usually with as little detail as "he was exonerated by DNA".
When the author, rarely, tells the story of someone he really comes to life. He has a voice that can put across the suffering and circustance of a person in a very warm and interesting way. Had there been more of that writing it could have been a spectacular book.
As the book was about the Innocence Movement itself I was not expecting some true crime book but, had the dates and figures been interspersed with case studies it would have been great. It would have been nice to know exactly how someone was wrongfully imprisoned and how they were exonerated. Had this been the case I would have given a much higher rating.
The author himself calls this work a study. Unless this book is to be marketed solely for academic purposes, which I am sure it isn't, then it should not BE a study. It should be an accessible book for all people interested in the subject to enjoy.
The author is obviously very passionate about this subject - hence 2 stars instead of 1 - yet passion alone does not make a book good.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Blood Magic (The Blood Journals, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Books should capture you from the first page, right? They should cause you to want to read more and not be able to put it down. They should also have important interesting things happening in every scene.
This is the problem with Blood Magic. The very first chapter was interesting: beyond interesting. It felt like I'd opened up to the middle. It threw me into the story with no explanation, no development, and no mental preparation. Because I didn't know the character I was reading about, it felt out of place and I just didn't care. The excitement was gone: it could have been dramatic if it was in Chapter 7, but it wasn't, it was in Chapter 1. The pacing felt off.
Same with the romance between the two main characters: It was way too smooth, way to fast, and there was no chemistry. They kissed a lot, but there was no chemistry, because there wasn't enough time for the tension between them to build.
I felt like the story didn't really get started until halfway through the book. I kept wondering "what's the point of all this?" See, stuff was happening, but there was no real plot. A plot is the main point of the story, and events link together to form it. Blood Magic had lots of events, but they didn't start connecting until late, and by that time I was tired of lots of kissing and cutting and looking at each other with go-go eyes.
On the good side, I did like the female protagonist, Silla. Her personality and her character were fun, her responses and reactions were plausible. The blood magic she performs was intriguing, as all magic is to me, and I enjoyed reading about it (however gruesome cutting yourself to use your blood for magic potions is).
However I am terribly disappointed. I expected much more from a Randomhouse book. The concept of Blood Magic had so much potential… but I feel disappointed and annoyed after hitting the halfway point. And the thing about reading is, why read something disappointing when I could read something that will please me? So I'm moving on.
This is the problem with Blood Magic. The very first chapter was interesting: beyond interesting. It felt like I'd opened up to the middle. It threw me into the story with no explanation, no development, and no mental preparation. Because I didn't know the character I was reading about, it felt out of place and I just didn't care. The excitement was gone: it could have been dramatic if it was in Chapter 7, but it wasn't, it was in Chapter 1. The pacing felt off.
Same with the romance between the two main characters: It was way too smooth, way to fast, and there was no chemistry. They kissed a lot, but there was no chemistry, because there wasn't enough time for the tension between them to build.
I felt like the story didn't really get started until halfway through the book. I kept wondering "what's the point of all this?" See, stuff was happening, but there was no real plot. A plot is the main point of the story, and events link together to form it. Blood Magic had lots of events, but they didn't start connecting until late, and by that time I was tired of lots of kissing and cutting and looking at each other with go-go eyes.
On the good side, I did like the female protagonist, Silla. Her personality and her character were fun, her responses and reactions were plausible. The blood magic she performs was intriguing, as all magic is to me, and I enjoyed reading about it (however gruesome cutting yourself to use your blood for magic potions is).
However I am terribly disappointed. I expected much more from a Randomhouse book. The concept of Blood Magic had so much potential… but I feel disappointed and annoyed after hitting the halfway point. And the thing about reading is, why read something disappointing when I could read something that will please me? So I'm moving on.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Death in Profile in Books
Mar 15, 2018
(I've changed this down to 3 stars from 4 stars cause think back, it wasn't actually that good, I just think I was really happy to find a Netgalley book that didn't bore me to death)
Firstly I'd like to thank Netgalley and Urbane Publications for giving me the opportunity to read this book.
Death in Profile is an excellent twist on modern crime drama novels. It's refreshing to find all the characters have a clear head with no underlying disturbances like we see with many other detective characters. While the plot for this novel is nothing too bold or different from other books out there, it still manages to feel unique.
I like how Sampson doesn't focus on simply one person throughout the book, but instead lets you in to each persons life in little snippets making you want to keep reading and find out more and more about each person. While Metcalfe and Willis are interesting as separate people I found their relationship juvenile, in all honesty. The way they went about each other was really rather unimaginable.
For me, the characters made this book fun and exciting because I didn't feel the plot was anything too incredibly amazing and I found the 'shock twist' a little... disappointing. I would have preferred the story to continue in the direction it was already heading by that point rather than the real outcome. I also found the last few pages of the book a bit pointless and it confused me slightly as to why it was included, I think it completely took away from the amazement you were supposed to feel about the outcome of the investigation into the serial killings.
Other than that and a few spelling mistakes here and there (which I couldn't keep note of due to there being no page numbers on the kindle), I actually did very much like this book and was reaching for it of a night time as well as during my travelling hours. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a crime drama without the troubled cop or gritty suspense. Definitely a fun and quick read.
Firstly I'd like to thank Netgalley and Urbane Publications for giving me the opportunity to read this book.
Death in Profile is an excellent twist on modern crime drama novels. It's refreshing to find all the characters have a clear head with no underlying disturbances like we see with many other detective characters. While the plot for this novel is nothing too bold or different from other books out there, it still manages to feel unique.
I like how Sampson doesn't focus on simply one person throughout the book, but instead lets you in to each persons life in little snippets making you want to keep reading and find out more and more about each person. While Metcalfe and Willis are interesting as separate people I found their relationship juvenile, in all honesty. The way they went about each other was really rather unimaginable.
For me, the characters made this book fun and exciting because I didn't feel the plot was anything too incredibly amazing and I found the 'shock twist' a little... disappointing. I would have preferred the story to continue in the direction it was already heading by that point rather than the real outcome. I also found the last few pages of the book a bit pointless and it confused me slightly as to why it was included, I think it completely took away from the amazement you were supposed to feel about the outcome of the investigation into the serial killings.
Other than that and a few spelling mistakes here and there (which I couldn't keep note of due to there being no page numbers on the kindle), I actually did very much like this book and was reaching for it of a night time as well as during my travelling hours. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a crime drama without the troubled cop or gritty suspense. Definitely a fun and quick read.