Search
Search results
Calvin (Almstead Island: Newcomer's Club #2)
10.0
Rate It
Book
What could go right with a Daddy who doesn’t know how to be one, and a boy who’s scared to let...
Contemporary MM Romance Daddy kink Content Warnings: Daddy/boy parental death
Kaysee Hood (83 KP) rated Magnus Chase and the Ship of the Dead: Magnus Chase Series Book 3 in Books
Nov 30, 2017
Magnus & Alex (5 more)
Friendship
Big Banana
Chase Space
Percabeth
Pottery Barn
Dragon Dad (3 more)
Ragnarok
A Ship Made Out of Zombie Nails (Gross)
Abusive Dads
World Ending? Not again...
Stop the end of the world. Sounds easy enough, right?
How many times are children of the Gods going to have to do this before one of them has the foretold quest to alter it where life as we know it is not in peril?
Magnus Chase and his friends have to stop Loki, ensure Naglfar doesn't sail, and prevent Ragnarok. Oh, also all while fighting giants with pottery, getting Godly blood and spit mead from giants in the hopes it'll help Magnus in an insult contest with Loki, seeing if Granddad Njord's ex-wife will help them out or let them freeze like a pre-made dinner meal supermom prepared for someone else to pop in the oven. Did I mention Floor 19 Crew has to do all these tasks without dying because not being in Hotel Valhalla equals no responding to life in their rooms. No do overs. No second chances. Simply dead. Easy as pie.
To not spoil this for those of you who have yet to read book three I'll end my sum of The Ship of the Dead and continue on with my praise.
Though there is the question of the voices, if this is the last of Magnus Chase then I have to say I'm pleased with our trilogy of the Norse Gods. In Sword of Summer, Hammer of Thor, and now The Ship of the Dead we've had the characters fleshed out. We've seen them grown. We've witness them overcome personal trails and fight through fears (can we say good job Magnus for fighting wolves even though it is clearly a phobia?). This has proved even those waiting for their day of judgement for centuries can change who they are and accept things even if they are not okay with them.
Somehow in 400 pages that pasts of Halfborn, Mallory, and T.J. were laid out to be part of the main plot, but also show development of the characters and how their own lessons would help on the quest. We were actually able to learn how far they have come from who they were before they died, after death, and who they are now. It was even written how to show they are still learning their lessons and have things to overcome now, which is perfectly okay as long as they stay strong and levelheaded.
The daughters/son of Loki had to overcome their own fears of being good enough despite what poison their fathers have caused them to believe. Even Hearthstone has to return to face the curse over his family one more time. Even Magnus has a realization he has wroth and even if some may not see it, he does and so do his friends.
The Ship of the Dead seems to be about looking at your fears and flaws, realizing they are there, and having to make the choice what you will do about them. Will you allow them to take over your life? Or will you work to be a better person? Are you going to let one moment in the past ruin your future? Or will you take the lesson and forgive yourself, forgive someone else, and live the best life you can? Will you let a parents shortcomings decide how you live? Or will you choose to look beyond their views and become a better person than they are?
How many times are children of the Gods going to have to do this before one of them has the foretold quest to alter it where life as we know it is not in peril?
Magnus Chase and his friends have to stop Loki, ensure Naglfar doesn't sail, and prevent Ragnarok. Oh, also all while fighting giants with pottery, getting Godly blood and spit mead from giants in the hopes it'll help Magnus in an insult contest with Loki, seeing if Granddad Njord's ex-wife will help them out or let them freeze like a pre-made dinner meal supermom prepared for someone else to pop in the oven. Did I mention Floor 19 Crew has to do all these tasks without dying because not being in Hotel Valhalla equals no responding to life in their rooms. No do overs. No second chances. Simply dead. Easy as pie.
To not spoil this for those of you who have yet to read book three I'll end my sum of The Ship of the Dead and continue on with my praise.
Though there is the question of the voices, if this is the last of Magnus Chase then I have to say I'm pleased with our trilogy of the Norse Gods. In Sword of Summer, Hammer of Thor, and now The Ship of the Dead we've had the characters fleshed out. We've seen them grown. We've witness them overcome personal trails and fight through fears (can we say good job Magnus for fighting wolves even though it is clearly a phobia?). This has proved even those waiting for their day of judgement for centuries can change who they are and accept things even if they are not okay with them.
Somehow in 400 pages that pasts of Halfborn, Mallory, and T.J. were laid out to be part of the main plot, but also show development of the characters and how their own lessons would help on the quest. We were actually able to learn how far they have come from who they were before they died, after death, and who they are now. It was even written how to show they are still learning their lessons and have things to overcome now, which is perfectly okay as long as they stay strong and levelheaded.
The daughters/son of Loki had to overcome their own fears of being good enough despite what poison their fathers have caused them to believe. Even Hearthstone has to return to face the curse over his family one more time. Even Magnus has a realization he has wroth and even if some may not see it, he does and so do his friends.
The Ship of the Dead seems to be about looking at your fears and flaws, realizing they are there, and having to make the choice what you will do about them. Will you allow them to take over your life? Or will you work to be a better person? Are you going to let one moment in the past ruin your future? Or will you take the lesson and forgive yourself, forgive someone else, and live the best life you can? Will you let a parents shortcomings decide how you live? Or will you choose to look beyond their views and become a better person than they are?
Sloane Jacobsen is the most famous and sought after trends forecaster in the world. Companies across the globe seek Sloane's knowledge about the "next big thing." Sloane may be confident in her work life, but her personal life is a mess. She's not happy with her boyfriend, Roman, and she's basically estranged from her family--all since she fled to Paris shortly after her father's death. But now Sloane is working for six months in New York: she's back near her family, and Roman is accompanying her on the trip.
This book immediately got off on the wrong foot with me as the main character ranted against how society has changed--using peanut allergies and the horror of having to avoid her favorite peanut-filled treats on a plane as proof. As someone with a kid with a peanut allergy (who has met these lovely people on planes in real life), I was already turned off by Sloane. <i>It never really got any better. </i>
Sloane is supposedly a trend forecaster. Her entire life she's been able to "see" things and predict where society is going with certain trends. She is credited with foreseeing the famous "swipe" action. The problem Sloane faces now is that she thinks society is going to turn against the technology it has come to hold so dear: something that doesn't sit well with the technology-focused firm, Mammoth, who has hired her. After all, Mammoth uses a driverless car to transport Sloane while she works for them. They want her to present at a convention that aims to showcase technology for the childless set.
On the surface, this doesn't sound so bad. Consider parts of it satire and a critique on our tech-obsessed society, and it has real promise. Unfortunately, for me, <i>the premise fell flat.</i> My favorite character wound up being Anastasia, the driverless car. Sloane's boyfriend, Roman, wears a Zentai suit (imagine a full-length wet-suit that covers his entire body) and preaches an anti-touch, pro-cybersex agenda. He's strange. That whole part of the plot is weird, albeit one that offers the occasional comic moment. Maybe my sense of humor is not finely developed enough?
The book nails a lot of the corporate world (you can certainly picture Dax, the head of Mammoth, and many of his worker bees). Other parts of the plot are harder to swallow. Sloane waffles. Roman irritates. The dialogue is oddly written at times. Large pieces of the plot didn't really seem necessary. Other pieces were interesting, but felt like reading a research paper (and I found myself skimming).
So while there were certainly funny moments (and it picked up a bit as it neared the end), overall I just found myself cringing. I didn't like the plot, I never warmed up to Sloane, and I wanted to hit Roman and Dax. Maybe I missed a higher meaning to this novel, as it seems to be getting a lot of better reviews, so take mine with a grain of salt. For me, I just didn't enjoy reading it, and that's why (and I debated this a while), I'm going with 2.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review. It is available everywhere as of 05/30/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This book immediately got off on the wrong foot with me as the main character ranted against how society has changed--using peanut allergies and the horror of having to avoid her favorite peanut-filled treats on a plane as proof. As someone with a kid with a peanut allergy (who has met these lovely people on planes in real life), I was already turned off by Sloane. <i>It never really got any better. </i>
Sloane is supposedly a trend forecaster. Her entire life she's been able to "see" things and predict where society is going with certain trends. She is credited with foreseeing the famous "swipe" action. The problem Sloane faces now is that she thinks society is going to turn against the technology it has come to hold so dear: something that doesn't sit well with the technology-focused firm, Mammoth, who has hired her. After all, Mammoth uses a driverless car to transport Sloane while she works for them. They want her to present at a convention that aims to showcase technology for the childless set.
On the surface, this doesn't sound so bad. Consider parts of it satire and a critique on our tech-obsessed society, and it has real promise. Unfortunately, for me, <i>the premise fell flat.</i> My favorite character wound up being Anastasia, the driverless car. Sloane's boyfriend, Roman, wears a Zentai suit (imagine a full-length wet-suit that covers his entire body) and preaches an anti-touch, pro-cybersex agenda. He's strange. That whole part of the plot is weird, albeit one that offers the occasional comic moment. Maybe my sense of humor is not finely developed enough?
The book nails a lot of the corporate world (you can certainly picture Dax, the head of Mammoth, and many of his worker bees). Other parts of the plot are harder to swallow. Sloane waffles. Roman irritates. The dialogue is oddly written at times. Large pieces of the plot didn't really seem necessary. Other pieces were interesting, but felt like reading a research paper (and I found myself skimming).
So while there were certainly funny moments (and it picked up a bit as it neared the end), overall I just found myself cringing. I didn't like the plot, I never warmed up to Sloane, and I wanted to hit Roman and Dax. Maybe I missed a higher meaning to this novel, as it seems to be getting a lot of better reviews, so take mine with a grain of salt. For me, I just didn't enjoy reading it, and that's why (and I debated this a while), I'm going with 2.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review. It is available everywhere as of 05/30/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Girl in Pieces in Books
Jan 29, 2019
Very Raw (2 more)
Great cast of characters
Beautifully written
A Dark Gritty Read
When I read the synopsis of Girl in Pieces by Kathleen Glasgow, I knew it was a book I had to read. I'm a big fan of books that deal with mental illness. I just love how raw they can be. Luckily, Girl in Pieces did not disappoint.
The plot for Girl in Pieces is so raw yet it is beautifully written. The story starts out with Charlie at Creeley, a mental hospital because she's a cutter, and the last time she cut, she cut pretty bad. At first, she is a selective mute, but eventually, she starts talking again. We learn that Charlie's had a pretty bad life. She's been homeless, assaulted, pretty much lost her best friend, had a horrible home life and other things. When the money for her stay at Creeley runs out, Charlie is thrust back into the real world much earlier than expected. She's left to fend for herself. She moves out to Arizona to be with her friend and crush, but things don't turn out as planned. Charlie must learn to survive and heal on her own or risk losing herself once again. Girl in Pieces felt so relatable and so true to life, like it could happen to anyone at any time.
The characters in Girl in Pieces all felt very real and exposed. They were written perfectly and felt like people I know and have known. It was interesting and eye opening to experience Charlie's journey every step of the way from the highs and the lows. There were so many times I wanted to be Charlie's friend so I could support her and let her know when she was making a mistake. I wanted to be there for her after the mistakes had been made and let her know that every day is a new chance to start over. I loved Blue and her joking attitude. Riley was an interesting character. I wanted him to turn out good. I wanted him to get better for Charlie and for himself. Linus was also a very amazing character. I also loved how real Julie was. Every single character in this book played a great part in Charlie's life, and I loved how well written each and every one of them was.
The pacing for Girl in Pieces starts out really strong which I enjoyed. It does slow down a bit after Charlie gets out of the hospital, but it's still flows along at a good pace. There are a few places where the book does get a bit too slow, but it quickly picks up not too much later.
Girl in Pieces is a very raw, gritty, and dark book, so there are a lot of triggers. The whole book could be a possible trigger. Triggers include self harm, self mutilation, cutting, drug use, underage drinking, drinking, death, suicide, violence, physical abuse, emotional abuse, mental illness, dark thoughts, profanity, and sexual acts and references.
Overall, Girl in Pieces is a great read. It's very dark, but it is real and written so well with fantastic characters. I would definitely recommend Girl in Pieces to those aged 16+ who love a dark gritty read.
The plot for Girl in Pieces is so raw yet it is beautifully written. The story starts out with Charlie at Creeley, a mental hospital because she's a cutter, and the last time she cut, she cut pretty bad. At first, she is a selective mute, but eventually, she starts talking again. We learn that Charlie's had a pretty bad life. She's been homeless, assaulted, pretty much lost her best friend, had a horrible home life and other things. When the money for her stay at Creeley runs out, Charlie is thrust back into the real world much earlier than expected. She's left to fend for herself. She moves out to Arizona to be with her friend and crush, but things don't turn out as planned. Charlie must learn to survive and heal on her own or risk losing herself once again. Girl in Pieces felt so relatable and so true to life, like it could happen to anyone at any time.
The characters in Girl in Pieces all felt very real and exposed. They were written perfectly and felt like people I know and have known. It was interesting and eye opening to experience Charlie's journey every step of the way from the highs and the lows. There were so many times I wanted to be Charlie's friend so I could support her and let her know when she was making a mistake. I wanted to be there for her after the mistakes had been made and let her know that every day is a new chance to start over. I loved Blue and her joking attitude. Riley was an interesting character. I wanted him to turn out good. I wanted him to get better for Charlie and for himself. Linus was also a very amazing character. I also loved how real Julie was. Every single character in this book played a great part in Charlie's life, and I loved how well written each and every one of them was.
The pacing for Girl in Pieces starts out really strong which I enjoyed. It does slow down a bit after Charlie gets out of the hospital, but it's still flows along at a good pace. There are a few places where the book does get a bit too slow, but it quickly picks up not too much later.
Girl in Pieces is a very raw, gritty, and dark book, so there are a lot of triggers. The whole book could be a possible trigger. Triggers include self harm, self mutilation, cutting, drug use, underage drinking, drinking, death, suicide, violence, physical abuse, emotional abuse, mental illness, dark thoughts, profanity, and sexual acts and references.
Overall, Girl in Pieces is a great read. It's very dark, but it is real and written so well with fantastic characters. I would definitely recommend Girl in Pieces to those aged 16+ who love a dark gritty read.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Alee: an Every Girl novel in Books
Dec 2, 2019
I love realistic fiction books that are a bit dark. When I first read the synopsis of Alee by Nicole Loufas, I was instantly hooked. I ended up devouring this novel in a short time!
The book starts out with Alee as a 17 year old high school senior. After sleeping with her boyfriend's best friend, she dumps her boyfriend for being too selfish. After being slut shamed at school, Alee finds comfort in her best friend Bryn. However, while at swim practice, Bryn is shot and killed. Around that time, Alee reconnects with her father that left her and her mother when she was 5, but even he isn't really there being as he's a homeless drug addict. With everything going wrong, Alee finds solace in Laine, her now ex-boyfriend's best friend - the one she slept with. The book talks briefly about Alee's life until the age of 21 where it really focuses on what is going on with Alee. When a major life even happens, Alee is thrown into a downward spiral that she may not ever escape.
I thought the plot for Alee was written beautifully. It's a story that most people can relate to in some way. I was sucked into the plot, and I felt like I was a ghost watching Alee's life unfold from the age of 17 to 21. There are a few minor plot twists which are interesting, but there are no cliff hangers. All of my questions were answered by the end of the book. The pacing for Alee is mostly perfect. There are a few, very rare, times where the pacing slows down, but it instantly picks right back up. I was never bored while reading Alee.
The characters in Alee felt very realistic and fleshed out. In fact, I felt like I knew all of these characters at one point in my life. Alee is such a strong character. She has had so much bad happen to her. It's as if she can't catch a break. It was interesting to follow Alee's thoughts on everything that would happen to her. She tried to stay positive even when her world was crashing down. I absolutely loved Alee, and I kept wanting something positive to happen to her. Laine seemed like such a great guy, and it was obvious how much Alee meant to him (and him to Alee). I loved reading about the love between Laine and Alee. I liked how Loufas made them feel like a real couple by giving them problems as well and not some Hollywood romance. I never really liked Benny. He was well written, but I always felt like I couldn't trust him. Throughout the book, I just kept wishing that he'd stay away from Alee!
Alee is a dark read, and it has quite a few strong triggers. These include gun violence, death, murder, suicide, rape, drug use, alcoholism, miscarriage, profanity, mentions of underage sex, and sexual situations (although not too graphic).
All in all, Alee was a very interesting and emotional read. If you are a fan of sunshine and rainbow books, Alee is not for you. However, if you're after a gritty, beautifully written realistic fiction novel that discuses tough issues, then Alee is the book you've been waiting for. I would definitely recommend Alee by Nicole Loufas to those aged 17+. Alee is one of those books that will keep you thinking about everything that happened in it long after you've finished reading it.
The book starts out with Alee as a 17 year old high school senior. After sleeping with her boyfriend's best friend, she dumps her boyfriend for being too selfish. After being slut shamed at school, Alee finds comfort in her best friend Bryn. However, while at swim practice, Bryn is shot and killed. Around that time, Alee reconnects with her father that left her and her mother when she was 5, but even he isn't really there being as he's a homeless drug addict. With everything going wrong, Alee finds solace in Laine, her now ex-boyfriend's best friend - the one she slept with. The book talks briefly about Alee's life until the age of 21 where it really focuses on what is going on with Alee. When a major life even happens, Alee is thrown into a downward spiral that she may not ever escape.
I thought the plot for Alee was written beautifully. It's a story that most people can relate to in some way. I was sucked into the plot, and I felt like I was a ghost watching Alee's life unfold from the age of 17 to 21. There are a few minor plot twists which are interesting, but there are no cliff hangers. All of my questions were answered by the end of the book. The pacing for Alee is mostly perfect. There are a few, very rare, times where the pacing slows down, but it instantly picks right back up. I was never bored while reading Alee.
The characters in Alee felt very realistic and fleshed out. In fact, I felt like I knew all of these characters at one point in my life. Alee is such a strong character. She has had so much bad happen to her. It's as if she can't catch a break. It was interesting to follow Alee's thoughts on everything that would happen to her. She tried to stay positive even when her world was crashing down. I absolutely loved Alee, and I kept wanting something positive to happen to her. Laine seemed like such a great guy, and it was obvious how much Alee meant to him (and him to Alee). I loved reading about the love between Laine and Alee. I liked how Loufas made them feel like a real couple by giving them problems as well and not some Hollywood romance. I never really liked Benny. He was well written, but I always felt like I couldn't trust him. Throughout the book, I just kept wishing that he'd stay away from Alee!
Alee is a dark read, and it has quite a few strong triggers. These include gun violence, death, murder, suicide, rape, drug use, alcoholism, miscarriage, profanity, mentions of underage sex, and sexual situations (although not too graphic).
All in all, Alee was a very interesting and emotional read. If you are a fan of sunshine and rainbow books, Alee is not for you. However, if you're after a gritty, beautifully written realistic fiction novel that discuses tough issues, then Alee is the book you've been waiting for. I would definitely recommend Alee by Nicole Loufas to those aged 17+. Alee is one of those books that will keep you thinking about everything that happened in it long after you've finished reading it.
Love's Executioner
Book
Love's Executioner offers us the humane and extraordinary insight of renowned psychiatrist Irvin D....
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Titanic (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2021
Shame about the romance
Film #13 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Titanic
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Last Day Survival:Survivor
Games
App
Last Day Survival:Survivor is a free end zombie survival strategy, with only one target for all...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.