Search
Search results

The Summer Children
Book
This FBI agent has come to expect almost anything-just not this... When Agent Mercedes Ramirez...

Natacha (374 KP) rated The Beauty of Darkness (The Remnant Chronicles #3) in Books
Jul 9, 2019 (Updated Jul 13, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
That was one of the hardest books I had to rate and review. The reason is that the adult part of me had very specific expectations while my young teenager self was reminding me that this is a YA book. More details.
Things that I liked:
-Lia is taking control of her destiny and do everything she can to save her people. As with the previous books is a strong female character, with personality and a big heart.
- We keep seeing how Lia is still attached to Venda and is also willing to help them. Is not just about saving her people but it's also about saving the people of Venda from their tyrant.
-Nice twists regarding Kaden past.
-Nice twists regarding Lia family
-I liked Lia's and her family dynamic.
Things my teenager self liked:
-Everybody gets a happy ending. Every main character survives and every one of them found love. A classic fairy tale ending.
Things I didn't like:
-Everybody gets a happy ending. Every main character survives and every one of them found love. A classic fairy tale ending... As an adult, I really didn't like that. First of all, if you have a love triangle and for two books you are telling us how much both Rafe and Kaden are sooooo deeply in love with Lia you don't get to just make Kaden fall in love with Pauline out of the blue and forget about Lia and just be besties. NO. I want my heart to be broken. I had mentally prepared myself for him to die or at the end to de like "I can be around you if you are not mine" and just leave. The author had an amazing opportunity to break our hearts but not... It's a YA book we can't do that. I sound like a crazy person I know...
-I felt this book was slower than it should have been. I was 40 pages from the end and this big battle between the ferocious army of Venda haven't even started. We had a big build-up from the previous book and I wanted an epic battle with twists and turns but it didn't happen.
-For 3 book we were told that Lia would have to "sacrifice" herself for the greater good. Well, that didn't happen either. Well, she "sacrificed" because she became the queen of Venda and couldn't be with Rafe. Ok, I can deal with that but then at the end, Lia and Rafe are "we love each other so we'll make it work", sooo... where is the sacrifice? Again a great opportunity to break our hearts but no... we went with the happy ending.
As I said this is a YA book so I'm perfectly aware of the author choices and I respect them. As a teenager, this would have probably been a 10/10. But if this final book was written for an adult audience it could have been heartbreaking and amazing.
Things that I liked:
-Lia is taking control of her destiny and do everything she can to save her people. As with the previous books is a strong female character, with personality and a big heart.
- We keep seeing how Lia is still attached to Venda and is also willing to help them. Is not just about saving her people but it's also about saving the people of Venda from their tyrant.
-Nice twists regarding Kaden past.
-Nice twists regarding Lia family
-I liked Lia's and her family dynamic.
Things my teenager self liked:
-Everybody gets a happy ending. Every main character survives and every one of them found love. A classic fairy tale ending.
Things I didn't like:
-Everybody gets a happy ending. Every main character survives and every one of them found love. A classic fairy tale ending... As an adult, I really didn't like that. First of all, if you have a love triangle and for two books you are telling us how much both Rafe and Kaden are sooooo deeply in love with Lia you don't get to just make Kaden fall in love with Pauline out of the blue and forget about Lia and just be besties. NO. I want my heart to be broken. I had mentally prepared myself for him to die or at the end to de like "I can be around you if you are not mine" and just leave. The author had an amazing opportunity to break our hearts but not... It's a YA book we can't do that. I sound like a crazy person I know...
-I felt this book was slower than it should have been. I was 40 pages from the end and this big battle between the ferocious army of Venda haven't even started. We had a big build-up from the previous book and I wanted an epic battle with twists and turns but it didn't happen.
-For 3 book we were told that Lia would have to "sacrifice" herself for the greater good. Well, that didn't happen either. Well, she "sacrificed" because she became the queen of Venda and couldn't be with Rafe. Ok, I can deal with that but then at the end, Lia and Rafe are "we love each other so we'll make it work", sooo... where is the sacrifice? Again a great opportunity to break our hearts but no... we went with the happy ending.
As I said this is a YA book so I'm perfectly aware of the author choices and I respect them. As a teenager, this would have probably been a 10/10. But if this final book was written for an adult audience it could have been heartbreaking and amazing.

Faris Badwan recommended track Corpus Christi Carol by Jeff Buckley in Grace by Jeff Buckley in Music (curated)

Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Benevolent in Books
Aug 25, 2019
I first heard of Benevolent by Erin A. Jensen through the blogging community. It sounded very interesting especially the more I heard about it. When an opportunity to review Benevolent came about, I jumped at the chance. Although Benevolent does mention the television show Supernatural throughout the book, you don't have to be a fan of Supernatural or know anything about the show to enjoy this novel. I will admit that I've only seen a few episodes of Supernatural back when it first began, but my limited knowledge of Supernatural did not take away my enjoyment of Benevolent. I'm really glad I got the chance to read Benevolent because it truly is a gem of a book!
The plot of Benevolent was a truly interesting one that really tugged at my heartstrings throughout. Benevolent begins with a teenage girl, Abigail (or Abbie as she's sometimes called) losing her best and only friend to cancer. She is comforted by an angel who appears in the form of Castiel from the television show Supernatural (her and her best friend's favorite). The reader is then taken through a journey throughout Abbie's life including all the ups and downs. Her angel, Castiel, plays a big role in her life's journey, and Abbie's left wondering if Castiel is real or if he's just a figment of her imagination. Benevolent is more than just that though. It's a gripping and emotional love story, but not in the romantic sense.
I could not put Benevolent down! In fact, I pretty much read this book in one sitting. It's a fairly short story, but the pacing was absolutely perfect throughout. I love how each chapter title was a song title. In fact, it makes for a great playlist whilst reading the chapter that features it or before and/or after that chapter. I was pulled into Abigail's world as soon as I started reading the first page. I loved how every loose end is tied up before Benevolent ends, and every question I had was answered. The world building is fantastic, and I can't fault anything about it. Erin A. Jensen is such a talented writer based on Benevolent!
I absolutely enjoyed every character in Benevolent. Abigail felt like an old friend. In fact, I felt like I was reading a true life biography about Abigail instead of just a work of fiction. Everything about Abigail's character was just laid bare for everyone to read about, and I think that's what made me love her so much. She had been through a lot, and I could relate to her on so many levels. The character of Castiel was written perfectly too. Like I said, I had only watched a few episodes of Supernatural before they introduced the character of Castiel, so I can't comment on how much Benevolent's character of Castiel was like the one on Supernatural. However, it is mentioned in the beginning of Benevolent that Abigail's angel took on the form of Castiel and his name and mannerisms to make Abbie feel more comfortable. It is said that he isn't the actual Castiel from Supernatural. We also get to know Danny, Abbie's childhood best friend, through Abbie's memories. Danny seemed like such an awesome person, and even I was saddened by his death.
Trigger warnings for Benevolent include death, cancer, attempted suicide, overdosing, drug use, alcohol, and some profanity but nothing too bad.
Overall, Benevolent is one of those books that will stick with you long after you've stopped reading. It's a book that tugs on your heart strings and won't let go until the very end. Benevolent has such a fantastic plot with such a relatable main character that it just makes for an awesome read. What makes Benevolent even more awesome (which is saying something since Benevolent is highly awesome already) is that 100 percent of the profits from its sales will be donated to Random Acts charity. I would wholeheartedly recommend Benevolent by Erin A. Jensen to everyone aged 15+ no matter what genre of book they like. I feel like this book will touch everyone who gives it a read.
--
(A special thank you to Erin A. Jensen for providing me with a paperback of Benevolent in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The plot of Benevolent was a truly interesting one that really tugged at my heartstrings throughout. Benevolent begins with a teenage girl, Abigail (or Abbie as she's sometimes called) losing her best and only friend to cancer. She is comforted by an angel who appears in the form of Castiel from the television show Supernatural (her and her best friend's favorite). The reader is then taken through a journey throughout Abbie's life including all the ups and downs. Her angel, Castiel, plays a big role in her life's journey, and Abbie's left wondering if Castiel is real or if he's just a figment of her imagination. Benevolent is more than just that though. It's a gripping and emotional love story, but not in the romantic sense.
I could not put Benevolent down! In fact, I pretty much read this book in one sitting. It's a fairly short story, but the pacing was absolutely perfect throughout. I love how each chapter title was a song title. In fact, it makes for a great playlist whilst reading the chapter that features it or before and/or after that chapter. I was pulled into Abigail's world as soon as I started reading the first page. I loved how every loose end is tied up before Benevolent ends, and every question I had was answered. The world building is fantastic, and I can't fault anything about it. Erin A. Jensen is such a talented writer based on Benevolent!
I absolutely enjoyed every character in Benevolent. Abigail felt like an old friend. In fact, I felt like I was reading a true life biography about Abigail instead of just a work of fiction. Everything about Abigail's character was just laid bare for everyone to read about, and I think that's what made me love her so much. She had been through a lot, and I could relate to her on so many levels. The character of Castiel was written perfectly too. Like I said, I had only watched a few episodes of Supernatural before they introduced the character of Castiel, so I can't comment on how much Benevolent's character of Castiel was like the one on Supernatural. However, it is mentioned in the beginning of Benevolent that Abigail's angel took on the form of Castiel and his name and mannerisms to make Abbie feel more comfortable. It is said that he isn't the actual Castiel from Supernatural. We also get to know Danny, Abbie's childhood best friend, through Abbie's memories. Danny seemed like such an awesome person, and even I was saddened by his death.
Trigger warnings for Benevolent include death, cancer, attempted suicide, overdosing, drug use, alcohol, and some profanity but nothing too bad.
Overall, Benevolent is one of those books that will stick with you long after you've stopped reading. It's a book that tugs on your heart strings and won't let go until the very end. Benevolent has such a fantastic plot with such a relatable main character that it just makes for an awesome read. What makes Benevolent even more awesome (which is saying something since Benevolent is highly awesome already) is that 100 percent of the profits from its sales will be donated to Random Acts charity. I would wholeheartedly recommend Benevolent by Erin A. Jensen to everyone aged 15+ no matter what genre of book they like. I feel like this book will touch everyone who gives it a read.
--
(A special thank you to Erin A. Jensen for providing me with a paperback of Benevolent in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)

Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Mar 23, 2018 (Updated Mar 24, 2018)
What? Why? How?
Right, quick disclaimer - this is going to be less of a review of the movie and more of a rant on how this movie ruins any Cloverfield movies going forward.
In terms of reviewing this film, I actually don't think that this film is as bad as most other people have been saying. There are actually some cool moments and neat ideas here, they just don't really work when they are all put together like this movie tried to do. I liked the cast, I thought that the set was cool, I even enjoyed some of the more cheesy sci-fi clichés in the film, but the whole point of the first two Cloverfield movies is that these planet altering events aren't explained. Even if you totally disregard the fact that this 'explanation,' actually makes no sense when you think about the timeline of the first movie's events, half the fun of the first movie was trying to work out exactly wtf was going on, this half arsed attempt at explaining it just ruins any of that potential fun.
Then, the second movie established that the 'Cloverfield,' label was more of an umbrella that went over these exciting sci-fi movies. Sure, it ties the movies together as a franchise, but there are no obvious links between the franchise entries and that's ok. Think of the 'Cloverfield,' title as being similar to the 'Twilight Zone.' Not everything has to make sense and call back/forward to another entry in the franchise. The tenuous links we had in the other movies, like how it was mentioned in 10CL that Howard worked at a satellite company before building his underground bunker, was more than enough to constitute a link and spark the online fan theories, we didn't need any more than that. Then there was all of the online marketing stuff involving Slusho and Tagruato, which was so clever and unique and elevated the first movie from being a mediocre monster flick to something intriguing and ripe for discussion.
Now this movie comes along and claims that all of these events are interconnected, even though the events of of the previous two movies took place years before the events of Cloverfield Paradox. Then they think by showing us a huge version of Clover from the first movie at the end of Paradox just automatically makes everything okay?
Why did they not just make this movie about a group of astronauts on a space station having some weird shit happening to them, (like the original script for this film was written,) and then call it Cloverfield: God Particle? (which was the movie's original title.) They could have still had Stambler's brother on the news at the start talking about how the crew's mission is dangerous and that would be enough to link this to the other movies. Why they included the appearance of Clover at the end of Paradox and the other half arsed attempts to tie the other two movies into this one is beyond me. It is so unnecessary and defeats the whole point of the Cloverfield franchise as a whole.
That is the reason I didn't like this movie, not because of the movie itself. The film itself was ok, but what it tried to do in terms of connecting these movies was stupid and unnecessary and may have ruined any other Cloverfield movies going forward.
In terms of reviewing this film, I actually don't think that this film is as bad as most other people have been saying. There are actually some cool moments and neat ideas here, they just don't really work when they are all put together like this movie tried to do. I liked the cast, I thought that the set was cool, I even enjoyed some of the more cheesy sci-fi clichés in the film, but the whole point of the first two Cloverfield movies is that these planet altering events aren't explained. Even if you totally disregard the fact that this 'explanation,' actually makes no sense when you think about the timeline of the first movie's events, half the fun of the first movie was trying to work out exactly wtf was going on, this half arsed attempt at explaining it just ruins any of that potential fun.
Then, the second movie established that the 'Cloverfield,' label was more of an umbrella that went over these exciting sci-fi movies. Sure, it ties the movies together as a franchise, but there are no obvious links between the franchise entries and that's ok. Think of the 'Cloverfield,' title as being similar to the 'Twilight Zone.' Not everything has to make sense and call back/forward to another entry in the franchise. The tenuous links we had in the other movies, like how it was mentioned in 10CL that Howard worked at a satellite company before building his underground bunker, was more than enough to constitute a link and spark the online fan theories, we didn't need any more than that. Then there was all of the online marketing stuff involving Slusho and Tagruato, which was so clever and unique and elevated the first movie from being a mediocre monster flick to something intriguing and ripe for discussion.
Now this movie comes along and claims that all of these events are interconnected, even though the events of of the previous two movies took place years before the events of Cloverfield Paradox. Then they think by showing us a huge version of Clover from the first movie at the end of Paradox just automatically makes everything okay?
Why did they not just make this movie about a group of astronauts on a space station having some weird shit happening to them, (like the original script for this film was written,) and then call it Cloverfield: God Particle? (which was the movie's original title.) They could have still had Stambler's brother on the news at the start talking about how the crew's mission is dangerous and that would be enough to link this to the other movies. Why they included the appearance of Clover at the end of Paradox and the other half arsed attempts to tie the other two movies into this one is beyond me. It is so unnecessary and defeats the whole point of the Cloverfield franchise as a whole.
That is the reason I didn't like this movie, not because of the movie itself. The film itself was ok, but what it tried to do in terms of connecting these movies was stupid and unnecessary and may have ruined any other Cloverfield movies going forward.

Brendan Benson recommended track Diamond Dogs by David Bowie in Best of Bowie by David Bowie in Music (curated)

Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/

Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Fifty Shades Freed (2018) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
I think this may be a first for me - I think I liked the movie more than I liked the book. *GASP* I know. I am usually the last person to say that. There are several movie adaptations of books that I hate because they just miss the mark. This isn't one. If you've read my review of the book, then you know that there's a whole section of the book that I think is useless involving Ana's stepdad, Ray. (No spoilers, but it's useless. Literally adds nothing to the story.) I'm so happy that they didn't end up putting that in the film. It would've added probably 30 minutes of dead footage that wouldn't have advanced the plot in any way.
In terms of the acting and the dialogue, as well as the plot, I think this is the best of all three of them. Not only is it the climax of the plot between the three films, but I also think that it showcases Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan far better than any of the other films. Jamie has even said that Christian is hard to like in the first film and he is, I think Ana is too. But to see the story unfold, round out, and finish, it's incredibly satisfying. Of course, there are things that they had in the book that they didn't have in the movie - I would've loved the full epilogue to be shot - but overall, I think that this movie is the one that comes out on top, along with the novel. Definitely a guilty pleasure and I'm sure I'll find myself watching it every couple of months just for a good time.
In terms of the acting and the dialogue, as well as the plot, I think this is the best of all three of them. Not only is it the climax of the plot between the three films, but I also think that it showcases Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan far better than any of the other films. Jamie has even said that Christian is hard to like in the first film and he is, I think Ana is too. But to see the story unfold, round out, and finish, it's incredibly satisfying. Of course, there are things that they had in the book that they didn't have in the movie - I would've loved the full epilogue to be shot - but overall, I think that this movie is the one that comes out on top, along with the novel. Definitely a guilty pleasure and I'm sure I'll find myself watching it every couple of months just for a good time.

Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Highwaymen (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019 (Updated Apr 5, 2019)
Costner & Harrelson (1 more)
Well made
HighwayMeh
The Highwaymen is a recent Netflix movie about two ex Texas Rangers that were brought out of retirement to hunt and kill Bonnie & Clyde. With that premise and Kevin Costner & Woody Harrelson in the lead roles, this could have been incredible. Although the movie is very well made and the entire cast are all pretty great in it, it is just so damn slow.
Not only that but it is 2+ hours long and, my God do you feel it. Like me, you will most likely spend the whole time waiting for the film to pick up until it just sort of fizzles out. I get that they were going for realism over action here, but it is seriously slow. At what I thought was almost the end of the movie, I hit paused to go for a bathroom break, only to discover that I was just shy of halfway into the movie's runtime.
Don't get me wrong, Costner and Harrelson do a great job of carrying this movie and it really does rely on their performance. Also, the movie is technically proficient. The camera work, the lighting, the set design etc is all solid, this is by no means a poorly made movie.
Overall, if you are a huge fan of the Bonnie & Clyde story, or of either of the lead actors, then you should probably check this one out. If not, you can most certainly give it a skip. As I keep reiterating, this is a technically sound movie, it is just so slow and drawn out that it is detrimental to me recommending the film to anyone other than diehard fans of this story.
Not only that but it is 2+ hours long and, my God do you feel it. Like me, you will most likely spend the whole time waiting for the film to pick up until it just sort of fizzles out. I get that they were going for realism over action here, but it is seriously slow. At what I thought was almost the end of the movie, I hit paused to go for a bathroom break, only to discover that I was just shy of halfway into the movie's runtime.
Don't get me wrong, Costner and Harrelson do a great job of carrying this movie and it really does rely on their performance. Also, the movie is technically proficient. The camera work, the lighting, the set design etc is all solid, this is by no means a poorly made movie.
Overall, if you are a huge fan of the Bonnie & Clyde story, or of either of the lead actors, then you should probably check this one out. If not, you can most certainly give it a skip. As I keep reiterating, this is a technically sound movie, it is just so slow and drawn out that it is detrimental to me recommending the film to anyone other than diehard fans of this story.
