Search
Chronicle - personal journal and secret diary - write notes
Lifestyle and Productivity
App
Top 150 iPhone app at a great price! -- Chronicle is the perfect way to keep a journal or diary on...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Mad Max (1979) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Decent
Guilty confession: Typically when I watch a "classic" or a film I've really been looking forward to, I go into it expecting to like it. In other words, the film is already ahead of the curve when it comes to my grading scale. It has to do a lot to let me down. I hate to say it, but Mad Max? It let me down. Not in the sense that it was bad, but rather in the sense that I was hoping for more.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
Thirty Day Boyfriend
Book
I should've never agreed to this arrangement... Thirty days ago, my boss--Mr. Wolf of Wall...
romance
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Goonies (1985) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Classic
Contains spoilers, click to show
I first watched this seminal 80's classic in 1988, when it first appeared on TV and I was blown away by it. I was 10, roughly the same age as the lads and here was a film with a raucous sense of humour, strong child characters and large-scale plot which has made this film a multi-generational classic, with our parents, us as parents and our children all investing in the spirit of adventure of The Goonies.
Named after the Goon Docks of which they inhabit, a group of kids, after finding a treasure map, decide that this is their last chance to save the town, which is to knocked down in favour of a Country Club. This leads them on an adventure through the booby-trapped underground catacombs of the town, as they follow the map to One Eyed Willie's treasure.
They get mixed up with the Fratelli's, a matriarchal crime family who get wind of the treasure and follows them into the caves.
The first ting that struck me about this, is after all these years what that it was still fun, enjoyable and even though I might not bother watching by myself, I would defiantly enjoy seeing again with the right audience. The raucous nature of a group of children together in a room is captured so expertly here, with a young Sean Austin, now famous for his portrayal of Samwise Gamgee in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, holding the pack together; but the chaos is portrayed perfectly.
The language is good here too, with casual swearing amongst the kids, meaning that this must be one of the rare family films to truly capture the interplay between tweenage and teenage kids. Overall, this is a classic for all the right reasons, with the story by Steven Spielberg with only goes to further reinforce his status as one of Hollywood's greatest visionaries and a sharp, tight screenplay by Chris Columbus, who penned Gremlins the previous year and went on to direct the first two, but the weakest two Harry Potter movies.
There is also the questionable issue of the way that the Fratelli's treat Chunk. When you think about it he is threatened with torture after being kidnapped and spending time with the murdered corpse of two 'Feds' who have been shot in the head, murdered in cold blood.
I love this, treating the horror in a mature way, allowing it to used as humour but in a way to playfully scare kids, which it does. It is fun, but I do wonder where the PC brigade would let some of these plot points go in to a child friendly romp in 2011? I hope so, as it is the combination of elements that made this film what it is today.
Named after the Goon Docks of which they inhabit, a group of kids, after finding a treasure map, decide that this is their last chance to save the town, which is to knocked down in favour of a Country Club. This leads them on an adventure through the booby-trapped underground catacombs of the town, as they follow the map to One Eyed Willie's treasure.
They get mixed up with the Fratelli's, a matriarchal crime family who get wind of the treasure and follows them into the caves.
The first ting that struck me about this, is after all these years what that it was still fun, enjoyable and even though I might not bother watching by myself, I would defiantly enjoy seeing again with the right audience. The raucous nature of a group of children together in a room is captured so expertly here, with a young Sean Austin, now famous for his portrayal of Samwise Gamgee in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, holding the pack together; but the chaos is portrayed perfectly.
The language is good here too, with casual swearing amongst the kids, meaning that this must be one of the rare family films to truly capture the interplay between tweenage and teenage kids. Overall, this is a classic for all the right reasons, with the story by Steven Spielberg with only goes to further reinforce his status as one of Hollywood's greatest visionaries and a sharp, tight screenplay by Chris Columbus, who penned Gremlins the previous year and went on to direct the first two, but the weakest two Harry Potter movies.
There is also the questionable issue of the way that the Fratelli's treat Chunk. When you think about it he is threatened with torture after being kidnapped and spending time with the murdered corpse of two 'Feds' who have been shot in the head, murdered in cold blood.
I love this, treating the horror in a mature way, allowing it to used as humour but in a way to playfully scare kids, which it does. It is fun, but I do wonder where the PC brigade would let some of these plot points go in to a child friendly romp in 2011? I hope so, as it is the combination of elements that made this film what it is today.
Fruity Smoothies! - Make Frozen Ice Drinks
Games and Education
App
Blend your own healthy green drinks with your very own virtual smoothie machine! Making Smoothies is...
Finding Grace
9.0
Rate It
Book
This morning, my daughter sat right here, munching her breakfast, too excited to finish it. Now, she...
Fiction Thriller Psychological
Sam (74 KP) rated The Hate u Give in Books
Mar 27, 2019
It’s got five-star reviews everywhere, has won so many awards, and literally, everyone is talking about it. So, of course, it’s worth a try.
Only I didn’t enjoy it to the point where I got halfway through and couldn’t finish it. I wasn’t even sure whether to post the review because I know that lots of people will disagree with me over this.
I was so excited for a book to be out that’s about police brutality in America towards black teenagers, and was surprised, to begin with, that something as serious as this was in a YA book, but also happy that it was being told to teenagers. It sounded like my ideal book.
But I just couldn’t get along with it at all. The whole idea with the book is to show what casual racism is doing to America, but at the same time on every few pages, there’s another part talking about how horrible and funny and evil white people are. If a book wants to make a stand against racism, make a stand against it from both sides, not just one. You cannot end racism by calling the other race.
I just found it really one-sided in its battle against racism. I am definitely not saying that the police shooting was right, let me just say that, and Starr has every right to hate the police for shooting her best friend. However, this does not mean that every few pages there needs to be a comment about how awful white people are.
A much healthier focus for the book would have been equality, not switching the racism to the other side in a ‘how-do-you-like-it-now’ move.
Only I didn’t enjoy it to the point where I got halfway through and couldn’t finish it. I wasn’t even sure whether to post the review because I know that lots of people will disagree with me over this.
I was so excited for a book to be out that’s about police brutality in America towards black teenagers, and was surprised, to begin with, that something as serious as this was in a YA book, but also happy that it was being told to teenagers. It sounded like my ideal book.
But I just couldn’t get along with it at all. The whole idea with the book is to show what casual racism is doing to America, but at the same time on every few pages, there’s another part talking about how horrible and funny and evil white people are. If a book wants to make a stand against racism, make a stand against it from both sides, not just one. You cannot end racism by calling the other race.
I just found it really one-sided in its battle against racism. I am definitely not saying that the police shooting was right, let me just say that, and Starr has every right to hate the police for shooting her best friend. However, this does not mean that every few pages there needs to be a comment about how awful white people are.
A much healthier focus for the book would have been equality, not switching the racism to the other side in a ‘how-do-you-like-it-now’ move.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Fellside in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Fellside was a unique combination of psychological, thriller, supernatural, crime, and romance. When I say psychological, it was because it makes you think; thriller because I couldn't put it down, and found my heart racing; romance not in the typical sense of the term, but a deep and surprising love that brought all the characters to a new level, and puts the reader in a different frame of mind. It was the kind of book you know is completely unrealistic, but since the author believes in it, you believe in it. It begins with a mysterious tug, and right as you fall in love with the main character she starts to break your heart. M. R. Carey doesn’t write cute books, or sweet books, or books that are easy to read. They make you think and confront how you feel about certain things; but it’s beautiful in it’s own way. I am totally in love with this story, this world, the concept, and the way it all comes together in the end. I definitely recommend it for ages 16+, but not as a light beach-read or hour-at-a-time read. Sit down and chew on this one, and let your mind go where it wants to. Content/Recommendation: Ages 16+ for some violent scenes. This is a women's prison. - See more at: http://www.thelifeandlies.com/2016/07/book-review-fellside-by-m-r-carey.html#sthash.DM728BD3.dpuf
David McK (3562 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Jan 9, 2022
First, let me start with an admission: I'd never actually seen this film before, even if it is (now) nearly 25 years old!
Oh, I was aware of it all right - I even remember seeing the posters in the cinemas when it first came out - but it just never really appealed to me all that much.
War movies rarely do.
I was also aware of the reputation it held, in particular because of brutality of the opening D-Day Normandy landing scenes (which still pack a punch today).
In case you've been living under a rock? The story follows a group of eight soldiers, led by Tom Hanks Captain Tom Miller (and including an early breakout role for Vin Diesel - who actually has hair!), who have been detailed to find and return home an American Paratrooper (the Private Ryan of the title, played by Matt Damon) who has been dropped somewhere in Europe after that paratrooper's three brothers are all killed during those landings. Cue them traipsing across war-torn lands, with the occasional musing on whether it is worth potentially losing eight men to rescue one, and with the drama largely provided by the fact that you never quite know who is going to survive or get bumped off next!
Oh, I was aware of it all right - I even remember seeing the posters in the cinemas when it first came out - but it just never really appealed to me all that much.
War movies rarely do.
I was also aware of the reputation it held, in particular because of brutality of the opening D-Day Normandy landing scenes (which still pack a punch today).
In case you've been living under a rock? The story follows a group of eight soldiers, led by Tom Hanks Captain Tom Miller (and including an early breakout role for Vin Diesel - who actually has hair!), who have been detailed to find and return home an American Paratrooper (the Private Ryan of the title, played by Matt Damon) who has been dropped somewhere in Europe after that paratrooper's three brothers are all killed during those landings. Cue them traipsing across war-torn lands, with the occasional musing on whether it is worth potentially losing eight men to rescue one, and with the drama largely provided by the fact that you never quite know who is going to survive or get bumped off next!
The Bastard Billionaire
Book
Eli Crane is back from the war, missing a leg and ready to finally be left ALONE. So why is his...