Search
Search results
Remind Me (Mystic Beach Fantasy Rockstar Romances, #4)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Recipe for a Delicious Love Story: • 1 spicy rockstar • 1 salty chef • a sweet first love ...
Paranormal RockStar Romance
HerCrazyReviews (247 KP) rated Rent: The Complete Book and Lyrics of the Broadway Musical in Books
Aug 24, 2019
AIDs Representation (1 more)
LGBTQIA+ Representation
Great Representation, Horrible Characters
I have never seen the musical Rent nor have I ever seen the movie (though I heard it is not as good and different from the musical). Therefore, my rating is based solely on this book and because of that, I may not be able to understand or enjoy it as much as I would have if I had watched the movie or musical first.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Neeson's best film in years
Yes, we all know the jokes. Liam Neeson’s spiral into revenge thriller territory is one of the most meme-worthy things in film, except maybe John Travolta and Battlefield Earth. Starting with Taken and its, let’s be honest, dreadful sequels, the Irish actor has made a name for himself as the go-to guy to rough someone up after a spate of bad-luck.
He’s had kids killed, kidnapped and spouses murdered in cold blood, he’s even been framed for hijacking a jumbo jet – if anyone deserves a break, it’s Liam Neeson. Unfortunately, his films have ranged from great (Taken, Non-Stop), to middling (Run All Night, The Commuter), to downright dreadful (Taken 2, Taken 3) and that’s how the meme-worthiness was born. Nevertheless, Neeson is back for yet another revenge thriller in Cold Pursuit. But how does it stack up?
Nels Coxman’s (Neeson) quiet life as a snowplough driver comes crashing down when his beloved son (Micheál Richardson) dies under mysterious circumstances. His search for the truth soon becomes a quest for revenge against a psychotic drug lord named Viking (Tom Bateman) and his sleazy henchmen. Transformed from upstanding citizen to cold-blooded vigilante, Coxman unwittingly sets off a chain of events that includes a kidnapping, a series of deadly misunderstandings and a turf war between Viking and a rival boss called White Bull.
Let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. This is not a review biased by Neeson’s, shall we say, ill-worded rant on his former life. We all have our own opinions on the matter, but that should not detract from individuals going to see a movie in the cinema. In fact, Cold Pursuit is Neeson’s most accomplished film in years, helped by stylish directing from Swedish director Hans Petter Moland. It’s worth noting that Cold Pursuit is in fact a US remake of Swedish film, In Order of Disappearance and there’s a tasteful nod to the film’s roots in the end-credits.
With a dark, comedic edge, Cold Pursuit is as funny as much as it is gory and it is this hybridity of genres that remains the film’s trump card. The script, penned by Moland himself, is witty and sharp, filled with fantastic line-delivery by the entire cast who look like they’re having a cracking time. There are twists and turns and even a gay-romantic subplot – how very contemporary.
Apart from Neeson, Tom Bateman is an absolute stand-out as the film’s primary antagonist. Allowing him to be a presence in the film from the outset allows the audience to fully feel his character and there’s no doubt that he is a despicable human-being. Neeson performs in typical Liam Neeson fashion. He snarls and growls his way through the film but allows a softer side to creep in than we’re used to, helped in part by that comedic script.
Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre
It’s not perfect however. Laura Dern is a massively underused presence throughout and disappears completely from the film about 1-hour in with no other references to her character. This is a real shame as her chemistry with Neeson is good and they make a believable couple, especially when they’re dealing with the ramifications of their son’s death.
Dern continues to prove her acting prowess and it would have been nice to see her continue to be a feature throughout the film. The pacing is a little off too. At 118 minutes long, the film plods a little as it gets going and then doesn’t stop until the fun and entirely ridiculous finale.
However, it’s good to see the special effects are up to scratch for the genre. Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre. With a relatively modest budget of $60million, it appears that was well spent with clever editing and cinematography masking any less-than-stellar visuals.
Overall, Cold Pursuit is a fun, if forgettable revenge thriller that features some delicious dark comedy mixed with an intriguing story. It’s certainly Neeson’s best film since Non-Stopand marks a return to form for the Irish actor. Unfortunately, these type of flicks are ten-a-penny nowadays and I’m unsure whether snappy one-liners and beautiful snow-capped peaks are enough to differentiate it in a crowded marketplace.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/01/cold-pursuit-review-neesons-best-film-in-years/
He’s had kids killed, kidnapped and spouses murdered in cold blood, he’s even been framed for hijacking a jumbo jet – if anyone deserves a break, it’s Liam Neeson. Unfortunately, his films have ranged from great (Taken, Non-Stop), to middling (Run All Night, The Commuter), to downright dreadful (Taken 2, Taken 3) and that’s how the meme-worthiness was born. Nevertheless, Neeson is back for yet another revenge thriller in Cold Pursuit. But how does it stack up?
Nels Coxman’s (Neeson) quiet life as a snowplough driver comes crashing down when his beloved son (Micheál Richardson) dies under mysterious circumstances. His search for the truth soon becomes a quest for revenge against a psychotic drug lord named Viking (Tom Bateman) and his sleazy henchmen. Transformed from upstanding citizen to cold-blooded vigilante, Coxman unwittingly sets off a chain of events that includes a kidnapping, a series of deadly misunderstandings and a turf war between Viking and a rival boss called White Bull.
Let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. This is not a review biased by Neeson’s, shall we say, ill-worded rant on his former life. We all have our own opinions on the matter, but that should not detract from individuals going to see a movie in the cinema. In fact, Cold Pursuit is Neeson’s most accomplished film in years, helped by stylish directing from Swedish director Hans Petter Moland. It’s worth noting that Cold Pursuit is in fact a US remake of Swedish film, In Order of Disappearance and there’s a tasteful nod to the film’s roots in the end-credits.
With a dark, comedic edge, Cold Pursuit is as funny as much as it is gory and it is this hybridity of genres that remains the film’s trump card. The script, penned by Moland himself, is witty and sharp, filled with fantastic line-delivery by the entire cast who look like they’re having a cracking time. There are twists and turns and even a gay-romantic subplot – how very contemporary.
Apart from Neeson, Tom Bateman is an absolute stand-out as the film’s primary antagonist. Allowing him to be a presence in the film from the outset allows the audience to fully feel his character and there’s no doubt that he is a despicable human-being. Neeson performs in typical Liam Neeson fashion. He snarls and growls his way through the film but allows a softer side to creep in than we’re used to, helped in part by that comedic script.
Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre
It’s not perfect however. Laura Dern is a massively underused presence throughout and disappears completely from the film about 1-hour in with no other references to her character. This is a real shame as her chemistry with Neeson is good and they make a believable couple, especially when they’re dealing with the ramifications of their son’s death.
Dern continues to prove her acting prowess and it would have been nice to see her continue to be a feature throughout the film. The pacing is a little off too. At 118 minutes long, the film plods a little as it gets going and then doesn’t stop until the fun and entirely ridiculous finale.
However, it’s good to see the special effects are up to scratch for the genre. Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre. With a relatively modest budget of $60million, it appears that was well spent with clever editing and cinematography masking any less-than-stellar visuals.
Overall, Cold Pursuit is a fun, if forgettable revenge thriller that features some delicious dark comedy mixed with an intriguing story. It’s certainly Neeson’s best film since Non-Stopand marks a return to form for the Irish actor. Unfortunately, these type of flicks are ten-a-penny nowadays and I’m unsure whether snappy one-liners and beautiful snow-capped peaks are enough to differentiate it in a crowded marketplace.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/01/cold-pursuit-review-neesons-best-film-in-years/
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Getting A Life, Even If You're Dead (No Going Back, #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I've been wanting to read this book for awhile. I love books with ghosts in them. I had high hopes for this book, but it just turned out to be an mediocre read.
Right away, the title of this book suggests that it's not going to be a scary book or one that takes itself too seriously. I do like the title, and I found it very interesting.
I like the cover. I think it suits a young adult book, and the cover fits with the setting of the book.
The world building was alright. I just felt that the ghosts were able to do too many things such as they were able to manipulate objects in the living world. They could move things, open doors, log on to Facebook, etc. It was the logging on to Facebook that really got to me. The ghosts even had their own Facebook pages! They could even write on others' Facebook profiles. I just think that because the ghosts were able to do too much, they would've been discovered in a real world setting.
The pacing was just alright. It wasn't too fast, and it wasn't too slow. It was just kind of there. I found myself not really in a rush to find out what would happen next.
I did enjoy the idea of the plot. I like how Kendra is able to see her dead best friend and then realizes she can actually see ghosts. I like how there was a mystery incorporated in the book. There was also romance going on with all the characters. However, I just felt as if there was too much going on with the plot. Perhaps this book would've been better without the romance especially the romance between Loic and Amber. I also felt as if the mystery about how Loic died wasn't that big of a mystery at all. I had correctly predicted the mystery surrounding Loic's death from the very beginning. There is a small plot twist towards the end, but it's not a major one. The author does leave the ending of this book open for the next book in the series, but I think this book could work well as a stand alone.
I didn't really connect with any of the characters, but I did enjoy them. My favorite character was Amber. To me, she felt the most realistic. It was good to see the wide range of emotions she was feeling throughout the book. I enjoyed her zest for life (even if she was dead). I also liked Pierrot. He seemed like a sweet boy, and it was clear how much he loved his brother. As for Kendra, I didn't like the way she treated her mother. I found her to be a bit disrespectful and a bit spoiled. I also didn't really care for Loic. To me, he came across as very whiny and a little bit selfish. I get that he just died and wanted answers, but it's like he just wanted everything to happen all at once. He was a very impatient boy.
I felt that the dialogue fit in more with a middle grade book rather then a young adult book. The way the characters thought and spoke made them seem like they were around thirteen or fourteen as opposed to being around seventeen years old. I also felt the dialogue didn't fit in with a modern day story. I can understand Amber using words that people don't really say anymore being as she died in the 1980s (although she's been a ghost, so surely she would've picked up the modern day lingo), but even Kendra used odd words such as the word "crimmers" (or something to that effect) when she was shocked about something. There's not really any violence, but there is some swearing. There's also no sexual references besides kissing.
Overall, Getting a Life, Even If You're Dead by Beth Watson is just an alright read. It's not great, but it's definitely not a bad read by any means. I believe that if the ghosts were a bit more believable and the book was written in more of a young adult tone, it could've been much better. I probably will read the next book in the series simply because it will focus on Amber.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 13+ who are like the mystery genre but also like their books with a little bit of romance.
(I received a free paperback of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
I've been wanting to read this book for awhile. I love books with ghosts in them. I had high hopes for this book, but it just turned out to be an mediocre read.
Right away, the title of this book suggests that it's not going to be a scary book or one that takes itself too seriously. I do like the title, and I found it very interesting.
I like the cover. I think it suits a young adult book, and the cover fits with the setting of the book.
The world building was alright. I just felt that the ghosts were able to do too many things such as they were able to manipulate objects in the living world. They could move things, open doors, log on to Facebook, etc. It was the logging on to Facebook that really got to me. The ghosts even had their own Facebook pages! They could even write on others' Facebook profiles. I just think that because the ghosts were able to do too much, they would've been discovered in a real world setting.
The pacing was just alright. It wasn't too fast, and it wasn't too slow. It was just kind of there. I found myself not really in a rush to find out what would happen next.
I did enjoy the idea of the plot. I like how Kendra is able to see her dead best friend and then realizes she can actually see ghosts. I like how there was a mystery incorporated in the book. There was also romance going on with all the characters. However, I just felt as if there was too much going on with the plot. Perhaps this book would've been better without the romance especially the romance between Loic and Amber. I also felt as if the mystery about how Loic died wasn't that big of a mystery at all. I had correctly predicted the mystery surrounding Loic's death from the very beginning. There is a small plot twist towards the end, but it's not a major one. The author does leave the ending of this book open for the next book in the series, but I think this book could work well as a stand alone.
I didn't really connect with any of the characters, but I did enjoy them. My favorite character was Amber. To me, she felt the most realistic. It was good to see the wide range of emotions she was feeling throughout the book. I enjoyed her zest for life (even if she was dead). I also liked Pierrot. He seemed like a sweet boy, and it was clear how much he loved his brother. As for Kendra, I didn't like the way she treated her mother. I found her to be a bit disrespectful and a bit spoiled. I also didn't really care for Loic. To me, he came across as very whiny and a little bit selfish. I get that he just died and wanted answers, but it's like he just wanted everything to happen all at once. He was a very impatient boy.
I felt that the dialogue fit in more with a middle grade book rather then a young adult book. The way the characters thought and spoke made them seem like they were around thirteen or fourteen as opposed to being around seventeen years old. I also felt the dialogue didn't fit in with a modern day story. I can understand Amber using words that people don't really say anymore being as she died in the 1980s (although she's been a ghost, so surely she would've picked up the modern day lingo), but even Kendra used odd words such as the word "crimmers" (or something to that effect) when she was shocked about something. There's not really any violence, but there is some swearing. There's also no sexual references besides kissing.
Overall, Getting a Life, Even If You're Dead by Beth Watson is just an alright read. It's not great, but it's definitely not a bad read by any means. I believe that if the ghosts were a bit more believable and the book was written in more of a young adult tone, it could've been much better. I probably will read the next book in the series simply because it will focus on Amber.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 13+ who are like the mystery genre but also like their books with a little bit of romance.
(I received a free paperback of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Jessica - Where the Book Ends (15 KP) rated The Astonishing Color of After in Books
Jan 30, 2019
FEELS!!!!!!!! ALL THE FEELS!!!!!!!!!! The Astonishing Color of After brought to light feelings for me that I didn’t know I was feeling. I cried tears I didn’t know I needed to cry. This book resonated with me in ways I’ve never experience before while reading. This book rebroke my heart but it also healed it in ways I couldn’t heal myself.
Let me start at the beginning… Leigh’s mother commits suicide. Her mom’s name is Dorothy and goes by Dory for short. While my mom didn’t commit suicide, she did die unexpectedly in August of 2016. I know, I know you’re thinking what does this have to do with the book but just put your patient pants on. My mom’s name was Doria, and she went by Dory. While Leigh was lucky enough to be the one that didn’t find her mom, I wasn’t lucky enough to have the same luxury. I could relate to how Leigh was feeling on so many levels. So much so, it felt like the author had interviewed me and then written the book based on that interview. Leigh feels like she is to blame partly for her mother’s death. She feels like if she would have only done x better, if only she’d been in y place at z time she would have been able to save her mom. I know because I had these same thoughts and still do until this day. After reading this book and realizing there just wasn’t anything I could have done to change the outcome of what was destined to happen. But just because my mom isn’t physically here anymore doesn’t mean she’s gone forever. I still see her in myself every time I look in the mirror. She is always with me.
The magical realism aspect of this book brought the journey and the imagery to life for me. I could picture this big beautiful red bird soaring around Leigh. The more I read of this book the more I found myself looking to the sky to see what is out there for me, and then I realized that looking to the sky is something that I’ve done since the day my mom died. I find myself looking around at the clouds and the sky seeing if there is a trace of her looking down on me. Now my favorite time to look to the sky is at night and I imagine her as one of the stars looming overhead keeping an eye on me.
The characters in this book are so real. Leigh, her grandparents, her dad, and Axel. Though, I must admit I feel as though the story could have been just as good without Axel. Sometimes he just seemed to crowd the story and take away from what was happening. I think my most favorite character was Feng, and all the she represents. I absolutely loved this aspect of the book. I also loved Ghost Month as this was something I had never heard of before and it and it reminds me of one of my other favorite holidays El Dia de los Muertos. I loved learning about the Taiwanese culture.
The way the author wove this story together through her words brought the magic and the storytelling to life. Her writing style worked extremely well for the subject of this story and I can’t wait to see what she is going to write in the future. The only aspect of this story that just didn’t mesh for me was all the colors sprinkled throughout the story. Honestly though, that is such a minute detail that it’s barely worth mentioning.
As you can see this story hit me very close to home, and I am so incredibly grateful to the author for writing it. It rebroke my heart and then helped to heal that same broken heart.
Now, on to the important bits… Suicide… If you are ever in a position where you feel that you just absolutely can’t go on do me one solid. Pause. Pick up your phone, and text HELP to 741741. This is the number for the Crisis Text Line. You will be connected to one of their trained Crisis Counselors. I am a trained Crisis Counselor on the CTL and I can guarantee you that you are not alone in how you’re feeling. Ask for help, we’re here to listen, we’re trained to help you. You are not alone. Just remember 741741 and HELP. That’s all it takes and someone will be there for you.
Let me start at the beginning… Leigh’s mother commits suicide. Her mom’s name is Dorothy and goes by Dory for short. While my mom didn’t commit suicide, she did die unexpectedly in August of 2016. I know, I know you’re thinking what does this have to do with the book but just put your patient pants on. My mom’s name was Doria, and she went by Dory. While Leigh was lucky enough to be the one that didn’t find her mom, I wasn’t lucky enough to have the same luxury. I could relate to how Leigh was feeling on so many levels. So much so, it felt like the author had interviewed me and then written the book based on that interview. Leigh feels like she is to blame partly for her mother’s death. She feels like if she would have only done x better, if only she’d been in y place at z time she would have been able to save her mom. I know because I had these same thoughts and still do until this day. After reading this book and realizing there just wasn’t anything I could have done to change the outcome of what was destined to happen. But just because my mom isn’t physically here anymore doesn’t mean she’s gone forever. I still see her in myself every time I look in the mirror. She is always with me.
The magical realism aspect of this book brought the journey and the imagery to life for me. I could picture this big beautiful red bird soaring around Leigh. The more I read of this book the more I found myself looking to the sky to see what is out there for me, and then I realized that looking to the sky is something that I’ve done since the day my mom died. I find myself looking around at the clouds and the sky seeing if there is a trace of her looking down on me. Now my favorite time to look to the sky is at night and I imagine her as one of the stars looming overhead keeping an eye on me.
The characters in this book are so real. Leigh, her grandparents, her dad, and Axel. Though, I must admit I feel as though the story could have been just as good without Axel. Sometimes he just seemed to crowd the story and take away from what was happening. I think my most favorite character was Feng, and all the she represents. I absolutely loved this aspect of the book. I also loved Ghost Month as this was something I had never heard of before and it and it reminds me of one of my other favorite holidays El Dia de los Muertos. I loved learning about the Taiwanese culture.
The way the author wove this story together through her words brought the magic and the storytelling to life. Her writing style worked extremely well for the subject of this story and I can’t wait to see what she is going to write in the future. The only aspect of this story that just didn’t mesh for me was all the colors sprinkled throughout the story. Honestly though, that is such a minute detail that it’s barely worth mentioning.
As you can see this story hit me very close to home, and I am so incredibly grateful to the author for writing it. It rebroke my heart and then helped to heal that same broken heart.
Now, on to the important bits… Suicide… If you are ever in a position where you feel that you just absolutely can’t go on do me one solid. Pause. Pick up your phone, and text HELP to 741741. This is the number for the Crisis Text Line. You will be connected to one of their trained Crisis Counselors. I am a trained Crisis Counselor on the CTL and I can guarantee you that you are not alone in how you’re feeling. Ask for help, we’re here to listen, we’re trained to help you. You are not alone. Just remember 741741 and HELP. That’s all it takes and someone will be there for you.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 8, 2020
When the trailers for this landed I knew I needed to see it, despite a large reservation it looked good and I was excited to see what they'd done with the story.
Cecilia has made the break from her abusive boyfriend and is trying to retake her life. It isn't easy when she's worried he'll be waiting for her or following the people she knows. That all changes when her sister tells her that he's been found dead, she can finally come out of hiding.
It's liberating, but she soon feels like his death might not have been as final as everyone thought. The creak of a floorboard, a noise in the next room, she's not alone. As terrible things start to befall her can she prove there's something to her claims or will everyone just think she's lost her mind?
I was not disappointed by this film, it really was a thrilling watch. It amazed me that you can achieve things like this on a (relatively) teeny tiny budget. I haven't seen or gone looking for details on how they did the invisible bits of the Invisible Man yet but my first instinct would be a morph suit and some wires (if you know please do let me know in the comments)... I'm guessing that inventing a real invisible suit was definitely out of their budget.
The effects never looked bad, there was one moment where it didn't entirely look real but that was during the very first physical interaction with him and I'm inclined to put it down to my surprise. I do want to go and see this again though so we'll see how it fairs then. I'm going to skip to another topic that crosses with this one...
The scares... normally I find horror films with obvious jump scares easier to deal with, it's a classic, and mainly predictable, device. There were a lot of times I was scared during the screening, but not in the way I expected. Those jump scares were there and I was feeling rather confident I'd do fine... I didn't do fine. They managed to scare me in a way I've never quite experienced before. Even the moment we see in the trailer where Cecilia is peering out of the attic got me. The build up to all these moments and the anticipation made them so much more than simple jumps and that really impressed me. The moments where he's revealed from behind his invisibility blend in really well with everything despite the fact your brain is telling you it isn't possible... or is it?!
I loved the camerawork. You'd pan out to an empty space and wonder if it was really empty, a doorway, an empty corridor... the way we zoom out to view the whole room with the realisation that he could be anywhere is an excellent way to make the audience as paranoid as she is.
When Cecilia makes her escape from Adrian she is taken in by James and his daughter Sydney, played by Aldis Hodge and Storm Reid. The dynamic the three of them have together is great, James is such a strong person when it comes to trying to help Cecilia get back to a normal life. That was a great thing to see and Hodge plays it perfectly. I'm also relieved that in the whole film we're never made to see a romance between the two, it's friendship and survival, nothing more.
Elisabeth Moss in the lead role had been my initial hesitation, I'm not really a fan. She was good, if she hadn't been I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie so much, but I felt like she managed to make Cecilia a little too manic at times. Occasionally that worked, and since I saw the film I've been wondering what sort of difference it would have made had she not been that way.
I liked that there were nods to things throughout the film, those little references were fun to look for but I wish they'd kept it out of the trailers. The bandaged man had no context in the trailer apart from a little flag for people who know previous versions. I can see trying to appeal to them with it but I'm not convinced the rest of the trailer would have anyway so what was the point?
The Invisible Man was much more that I had hoped for, it created so much suspense out of an empty room and some clever angles that I was just ever so slightly paranoid by the time I got home.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-invisible-man-movie-review.html
Cecilia has made the break from her abusive boyfriend and is trying to retake her life. It isn't easy when she's worried he'll be waiting for her or following the people she knows. That all changes when her sister tells her that he's been found dead, she can finally come out of hiding.
It's liberating, but she soon feels like his death might not have been as final as everyone thought. The creak of a floorboard, a noise in the next room, she's not alone. As terrible things start to befall her can she prove there's something to her claims or will everyone just think she's lost her mind?
I was not disappointed by this film, it really was a thrilling watch. It amazed me that you can achieve things like this on a (relatively) teeny tiny budget. I haven't seen or gone looking for details on how they did the invisible bits of the Invisible Man yet but my first instinct would be a morph suit and some wires (if you know please do let me know in the comments)... I'm guessing that inventing a real invisible suit was definitely out of their budget.
The effects never looked bad, there was one moment where it didn't entirely look real but that was during the very first physical interaction with him and I'm inclined to put it down to my surprise. I do want to go and see this again though so we'll see how it fairs then. I'm going to skip to another topic that crosses with this one...
The scares... normally I find horror films with obvious jump scares easier to deal with, it's a classic, and mainly predictable, device. There were a lot of times I was scared during the screening, but not in the way I expected. Those jump scares were there and I was feeling rather confident I'd do fine... I didn't do fine. They managed to scare me in a way I've never quite experienced before. Even the moment we see in the trailer where Cecilia is peering out of the attic got me. The build up to all these moments and the anticipation made them so much more than simple jumps and that really impressed me. The moments where he's revealed from behind his invisibility blend in really well with everything despite the fact your brain is telling you it isn't possible... or is it?!
I loved the camerawork. You'd pan out to an empty space and wonder if it was really empty, a doorway, an empty corridor... the way we zoom out to view the whole room with the realisation that he could be anywhere is an excellent way to make the audience as paranoid as she is.
When Cecilia makes her escape from Adrian she is taken in by James and his daughter Sydney, played by Aldis Hodge and Storm Reid. The dynamic the three of them have together is great, James is such a strong person when it comes to trying to help Cecilia get back to a normal life. That was a great thing to see and Hodge plays it perfectly. I'm also relieved that in the whole film we're never made to see a romance between the two, it's friendship and survival, nothing more.
Elisabeth Moss in the lead role had been my initial hesitation, I'm not really a fan. She was good, if she hadn't been I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie so much, but I felt like she managed to make Cecilia a little too manic at times. Occasionally that worked, and since I saw the film I've been wondering what sort of difference it would have made had she not been that way.
I liked that there were nods to things throughout the film, those little references were fun to look for but I wish they'd kept it out of the trailers. The bandaged man had no context in the trailer apart from a little flag for people who know previous versions. I can see trying to appeal to them with it but I'm not convinced the rest of the trailer would have anyway so what was the point?
The Invisible Man was much more that I had hoped for, it created so much suspense out of an empty room and some clever angles that I was just ever so slightly paranoid by the time I got home.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-invisible-man-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On the Rocks (2020) in Movies
Oct 23, 2020
Bill Murray being Bill Murray, but in sparkling form
Bill Murray is astonishing. Not just in "On the Rocks", but generally in life. Some actors - Johnny Depp, Mark Rylance, Gary Oldman, for instance - disappear completely into their characters so it takes a while to "see" who they are. Whereas with others - Bill Nighy, Tom Cruise, John Wayne, for instance - it's "Oh, there's the famous actor xxxx in a new movie". If we were grading on a scale, Bill Murray would be at the far right of the latter category. In every movie, he IS Bill Murray! In "Ghostbusters" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking ghost hunter. In "Groundhog Day" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking weatherman. In "The Monuments Men" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking art historian. (In the "Zombieland" movies, he excelled himself by playing the dry, laconic, wisecracking Bill Murray!)
For many actors, that would be a problem. But Bill Murray gets away with it, because - - he's Bill freakin' Murray!! And being him is so awesome that however many times you've seen the character, you always want more.
Here's a case in point. In "On the Rocks", a chaffeured car with tinted windows rolls up. You brace yourself as the window winds slowly down. And there he is... the star. This happens quite a way into Sofia Coppola's new film. First up, we get a leisurely, but intelligent, set-up to the plot. The "Parks and Recreation" actress, Rashida Jones, plays Laura; a successful writer (currently with writer's block) married to successful businessman Dean (Marlon Wayans). The couple seem to have it all: high income; large New York apartment; two lovely young children. But Dean is always away, travelling on business - and always with his attractive co-worker "with the legs" Fiona (Jessica Henwick). Is Dean scratching the seven-year itch?
Laura's rich, art-dealing father Felix (Bill Murray) arrives, and won't take no for an answer in sniffing out the truth.
Love, love, love this movie! The pacing, the humour, the witty dialogue (it's Sofia Coppola's script) and - above all - Murray's triumphant performance all fire this well and truly into my Top 10 for the year.
Bill Murray's acting is astounding... is there an actor who spends more time in his "deep in thought" mode, with eyeballs looking at the ceiling? You could quite well believe that none of it is scripted, and he's pausing in deep thought because he really is trying to compose the next best line! A scene where, through appropriate name-dropping, he charms his way out of a traffic infringement with two New York cops is utterly absorbing.
Behind every embarrassing father is a grown-up daughter rolling her eyes. (I should know!) And Rashida Jones is perfect in the role. I'm not familiar with Jones's previous work, but she was just perfect as the foil for Murray's humour.
There's dry comedy to be had throughout "On the Rocks" which I found delightful. A running joke is Laura's drop-off and pick-ups from the local kindergarten, where she is repeatedly pinned against the wall by single-mum Vanessa (Jenny Slate) and bored to death with her moans about boyfriend-hunting on the New York scene! It's an insight that the project is led by a female writer/director, reminiscing about personal experiences!
Coppola's script also buzzes with politically incorrect views of the playboy Felix. (He reminds me strongly of an ex-work colleague: the life and soul of any party and with a charisma that is naturally attractive to women!)
For me, there was just one misstep in the movie. There's a sub-plot about the estranged relationship between Felix and Laura's mother, and the unspoken tension that lies there. This all comes to a head in a hotel bedroom, and for me personally it brought the mood of the movie down and wasn't necessary. It's a relatively minor thing. But the result was that it just took the edge off things for me in declaring it a classic.
This is one of those flicks produced for Apple, in cinemas only while en-route to their streaming service to make it eligible for Oscar consideration. And it's actually available now. This is Coppola's third outing with Murray, with the most famous being the Oscar winner "Lost in Translation". I'm actually not a mad fan of that film. But this one comes with a "Highly recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/23/love-on-the-rocks-aint-no-surprise/ . Thanks)
For many actors, that would be a problem. But Bill Murray gets away with it, because - - he's Bill freakin' Murray!! And being him is so awesome that however many times you've seen the character, you always want more.
Here's a case in point. In "On the Rocks", a chaffeured car with tinted windows rolls up. You brace yourself as the window winds slowly down. And there he is... the star. This happens quite a way into Sofia Coppola's new film. First up, we get a leisurely, but intelligent, set-up to the plot. The "Parks and Recreation" actress, Rashida Jones, plays Laura; a successful writer (currently with writer's block) married to successful businessman Dean (Marlon Wayans). The couple seem to have it all: high income; large New York apartment; two lovely young children. But Dean is always away, travelling on business - and always with his attractive co-worker "with the legs" Fiona (Jessica Henwick). Is Dean scratching the seven-year itch?
Laura's rich, art-dealing father Felix (Bill Murray) arrives, and won't take no for an answer in sniffing out the truth.
Love, love, love this movie! The pacing, the humour, the witty dialogue (it's Sofia Coppola's script) and - above all - Murray's triumphant performance all fire this well and truly into my Top 10 for the year.
Bill Murray's acting is astounding... is there an actor who spends more time in his "deep in thought" mode, with eyeballs looking at the ceiling? You could quite well believe that none of it is scripted, and he's pausing in deep thought because he really is trying to compose the next best line! A scene where, through appropriate name-dropping, he charms his way out of a traffic infringement with two New York cops is utterly absorbing.
Behind every embarrassing father is a grown-up daughter rolling her eyes. (I should know!) And Rashida Jones is perfect in the role. I'm not familiar with Jones's previous work, but she was just perfect as the foil for Murray's humour.
There's dry comedy to be had throughout "On the Rocks" which I found delightful. A running joke is Laura's drop-off and pick-ups from the local kindergarten, where she is repeatedly pinned against the wall by single-mum Vanessa (Jenny Slate) and bored to death with her moans about boyfriend-hunting on the New York scene! It's an insight that the project is led by a female writer/director, reminiscing about personal experiences!
Coppola's script also buzzes with politically incorrect views of the playboy Felix. (He reminds me strongly of an ex-work colleague: the life and soul of any party and with a charisma that is naturally attractive to women!)
For me, there was just one misstep in the movie. There's a sub-plot about the estranged relationship between Felix and Laura's mother, and the unspoken tension that lies there. This all comes to a head in a hotel bedroom, and for me personally it brought the mood of the movie down and wasn't necessary. It's a relatively minor thing. But the result was that it just took the edge off things for me in declaring it a classic.
This is one of those flicks produced for Apple, in cinemas only while en-route to their streaming service to make it eligible for Oscar consideration. And it's actually available now. This is Coppola's third outing with Murray, with the most famous being the Oscar winner "Lost in Translation". I'm actually not a mad fan of that film. But this one comes with a "Highly recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/23/love-on-the-rocks-aint-no-surprise/ . Thanks)
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated The Remnants in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Genre: Historical Fiction
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.26/5 stars
My rating: 3/5 stars
Danny Pulbrook is a handsome and rebellious young man. Born the bastard son of a minor royal and orphaned at birth he is determined to find a new life far beyond his “pre-ordained oblivion”. His only way out – a forced enlistment into the army brings him to an inevitable confrontation with his own demons in the cauldron of the first world war.
Rose Quayle is a beautiful and confident hazel-eyed housemaid who, like her mother and her mother’s mother is employed in service at Meaford House – an expansive vice-regal estate near Tunbridge Wells. Like Danny she longs for a life beyond the tyranny of the rigid class system that defines her humble destiny.
Their chance meeting becomes the catalyst that changes both of their lives forever.
The Remnants is like a fixer upper. It’s unpolished and a bit of a hot mess, but you can still see the potential. Unfortunately, The Remnants was published before it got the TLC it deserved.
Not only is the text plagued with typos and missing punctuation, but there are too many storylines and character to keep straight. It’s a hot mess that could have been amazing.
The story starts out on a seemingly inconsequential day, with two minor characters talking. Yes, minor. They’re barely in the story but they make up the opening scene that eventually introduces Rose as a young, innocent girl going on her first car ride. So far there’s promise. After all, the boggy description will clear up when the story gets going, right?
I wish.
But it does pick up when we meet lovable bad boy Danny. Straight from an orphanage and now working at a general store, he’s a troublemaker and has never known love of any sort. He’s convinced he’s unlovable. Perfect for a love interest. I do have a thing for the bad boys. Give them a vulnerable side and I’m practically putty.
Rose and Danny have an excellently sweet and innocent chance encounter that clashes with the darkness in the rest of the book. Actually, there’s no foreshadowing at all that things will go so horribly awry when they met, or how dark most of the book is.
But dark it is. Danny goes off to fight in India, leaving Rose behind, but promising to still see her. After realizing he will die unless he deserts the army, he runs away and Rose goes to live with him in Canada
Had this been split into two or three full-length novels with the first novel ending here, I would have liked it a lot. But instead this great beginning with Danny’s and Rose’s innocence isn’t given the full detail and development it deserves, instead being condensed to the beginning of the novel.
But unfortunately it gets worse. Because the story continues. With so many characters that it’s impossible to keep them straight.
Danny’s character takes a sharp left when he feels the need to go to war again, this time with the Canadian army. He and Rose had practically just found each other and now he’s going back to fight, and after he had almost died the last time? Yeah. That makes total sense. What is he, an addict all of a sudden?
The entire story goes in a whirlwind. Danny has such a steep character arc, from innocent teenaged boy to hardened veteran, it might as well be a character cliff. Rose, on the other hand, doesn’t have that much character to arc. She’s slightly more bitter by the end, but she had already been bitter in the beginning of the story. Her lack of character frustrates me to no end.
There are some good parts to this story, though. Rose’s experience in the workplace was well-written, as was the death of Grace, Danny’s girl on the side. His war buddy, Mitch, is an excellent character and funny as hell, even if he is a bit cliched. The dynamic between Danny and his comrades is actually very good and I wish I had seen more of that and less flowery description about the war atmosphere.
While this story is mildly entertaining, well-researched, and interesting, it’s not my favorite and I will definitely not be reading it again. What do you think? Does this book sound interesting to you?
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.26/5 stars
My rating: 3/5 stars
Danny Pulbrook is a handsome and rebellious young man. Born the bastard son of a minor royal and orphaned at birth he is determined to find a new life far beyond his “pre-ordained oblivion”. His only way out – a forced enlistment into the army brings him to an inevitable confrontation with his own demons in the cauldron of the first world war.
Rose Quayle is a beautiful and confident hazel-eyed housemaid who, like her mother and her mother’s mother is employed in service at Meaford House – an expansive vice-regal estate near Tunbridge Wells. Like Danny she longs for a life beyond the tyranny of the rigid class system that defines her humble destiny.
Their chance meeting becomes the catalyst that changes both of their lives forever.
The Remnants is like a fixer upper. It’s unpolished and a bit of a hot mess, but you can still see the potential. Unfortunately, The Remnants was published before it got the TLC it deserved.
Not only is the text plagued with typos and missing punctuation, but there are too many storylines and character to keep straight. It’s a hot mess that could have been amazing.
The story starts out on a seemingly inconsequential day, with two minor characters talking. Yes, minor. They’re barely in the story but they make up the opening scene that eventually introduces Rose as a young, innocent girl going on her first car ride. So far there’s promise. After all, the boggy description will clear up when the story gets going, right?
I wish.
But it does pick up when we meet lovable bad boy Danny. Straight from an orphanage and now working at a general store, he’s a troublemaker and has never known love of any sort. He’s convinced he’s unlovable. Perfect for a love interest. I do have a thing for the bad boys. Give them a vulnerable side and I’m practically putty.
Rose and Danny have an excellently sweet and innocent chance encounter that clashes with the darkness in the rest of the book. Actually, there’s no foreshadowing at all that things will go so horribly awry when they met, or how dark most of the book is.
But dark it is. Danny goes off to fight in India, leaving Rose behind, but promising to still see her. After realizing he will die unless he deserts the army, he runs away and Rose goes to live with him in Canada
Had this been split into two or three full-length novels with the first novel ending here, I would have liked it a lot. But instead this great beginning with Danny’s and Rose’s innocence isn’t given the full detail and development it deserves, instead being condensed to the beginning of the novel.
But unfortunately it gets worse. Because the story continues. With so many characters that it’s impossible to keep them straight.
Danny’s character takes a sharp left when he feels the need to go to war again, this time with the Canadian army. He and Rose had practically just found each other and now he’s going back to fight, and after he had almost died the last time? Yeah. That makes total sense. What is he, an addict all of a sudden?
The entire story goes in a whirlwind. Danny has such a steep character arc, from innocent teenaged boy to hardened veteran, it might as well be a character cliff. Rose, on the other hand, doesn’t have that much character to arc. She’s slightly more bitter by the end, but she had already been bitter in the beginning of the story. Her lack of character frustrates me to no end.
There are some good parts to this story, though. Rose’s experience in the workplace was well-written, as was the death of Grace, Danny’s girl on the side. His war buddy, Mitch, is an excellent character and funny as hell, even if he is a bit cliched. The dynamic between Danny and his comrades is actually very good and I wish I had seen more of that and less flowery description about the war atmosphere.
While this story is mildly entertaining, well-researched, and interesting, it’s not my favorite and I will definitely not be reading it again. What do you think? Does this book sound interesting to you?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
An animated masterpiece? I should Coco!
I had no great expectations of this film. In fact, I honestly went to see it solely because – with the lazy multiplex habit of milking films like Jedi, Jumanji and (God help us) Pitch Perfect 3 – this was the only film at my local cinemas that I hadn’t seen. But wow… just wow!
For this is a masterpiece, and with the Oscar nominations released yesterday, it almost seems a crime that it wasn’t included in the Best Picture list (it must surely follow its Golden Globes win and snatch the Best Animated film category… although I admit that “Loving Vincent” clearly looks like it took a lot more work!).
Miguel (voiced by Anthony Gonzalez) lives in the quaint Mexican village of Santa Cecilia with his extended shoe-making family, including his grandmother Abuelita (Renée Victor) and his wizened old great-grandmother Coco (Ana Ofelia Murguía, via a brilliant piece of animation). Coco was a child from a broken home, with music being the cause of all the trouble, and this has led to a multi-generational ban that Abuelita polices with fierce passion. Unfortunately, Miguel “has the music in him”, idolising the – now deceased – singing sensation and matinee idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt, “Doctor Strange“). Desperate to perform in the Piazza talent contest, held during the evening of the “Day of the Dead” festival, Miguel takes destiny into his own hands…. which might prove fatal as he is dragged, alive and kicking, into the ‘land of the dead’.
The film is a thing of beauty. Some of the scenes: notably the candlelit graveyard, the “petal bridge” and the first sight of the land of the dead are done with such majesty and art that they take your breath away. Literally jaw dropping! (Try to make sure you see it on the big screen). So there are similarities here with “Blade Runner 2049” which also had images that could easily grace the walls of any art gallery in the world.
Where the film deviates from “Blade Runner” though is the original story by Lee Unkrich (who also directs), Adrian Molina (who co-directs), Jason Katz and Matthew Aldrich. Whereas the sci-fi reboot was a bit flaccid, story-wise, Coco develops in a surprisingly non-linear way. The story you think you are on suddenly does unexpected switchbacks and gets very deep indeed.
Deep? But this is a kids film right? Well, no, not really. Sure it has a lot of fun skeleton action, in the style of the re-constituting Olaf from “Frozen”, and a cute but mangy dog with a ridiculously long tongue. But the themes exposed here are FAR from childish. They encompass family, ambition, work/life balance, death and remembrance in such a fashion that parents exposing the film to young kids (I would think, up to 7 or 8 years old) should be ready with sensitive answers to “Mummy/Daddy, why…” questions so as to avoid significant anxiety and nightmares. The relationship between Miguel and his grandmother Abuelita, switching from violent outbursts to sudden loving hugs, might – I think – also confuse and disturb young children. Its UK certificate is “PG”, not “U”, for good reason.
So be prepared to cry. If you are anything like me, there will be a point in this film where you are desperately trying to recall the faces and voices of all of those people in your life that you have lost over the years. And some of the final jolts in this film will leave you almost as drained (almost!) as the start of “Up”.
As befits the subject matter there is a great score, with a mariachi feel, by Michael Giacchino, including a nice rendition of “When You Wish Upon A Star” over the Disney castle production logo. And there are some great songs, including the pivotal “Remember Me” which is now Oscar nominated.
Passport control at Heathrow was never like this.
Watch out for some nice cameo voice performances as well: Cheech Marin (from Cheech and Chong) plays the ‘border control’ officer, and Pixar regular John Ratzenberger (Hamm in “Toy Story”) turns up again playing Juan Ortodoncia, a character whose dentist fondly remembers him (LOL)!
With John Lasseter recently dragged into the #metoo scandal, and taking 6 months off to ponder on his “missteps”, one hopes this will not knock Pixar off its track too much. For with this evidence the studio shouldn’t keep trying to milk existing “Incredibles” and “Toy Story” franchises, but come up with more original entertainments like this. Because, for me, this rises into my top-three favourite Pixar films of all time (along with Toy Story and Wall-E).
For this is a masterpiece, and with the Oscar nominations released yesterday, it almost seems a crime that it wasn’t included in the Best Picture list (it must surely follow its Golden Globes win and snatch the Best Animated film category… although I admit that “Loving Vincent” clearly looks like it took a lot more work!).
Miguel (voiced by Anthony Gonzalez) lives in the quaint Mexican village of Santa Cecilia with his extended shoe-making family, including his grandmother Abuelita (Renée Victor) and his wizened old great-grandmother Coco (Ana Ofelia Murguía, via a brilliant piece of animation). Coco was a child from a broken home, with music being the cause of all the trouble, and this has led to a multi-generational ban that Abuelita polices with fierce passion. Unfortunately, Miguel “has the music in him”, idolising the – now deceased – singing sensation and matinee idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt, “Doctor Strange“). Desperate to perform in the Piazza talent contest, held during the evening of the “Day of the Dead” festival, Miguel takes destiny into his own hands…. which might prove fatal as he is dragged, alive and kicking, into the ‘land of the dead’.
The film is a thing of beauty. Some of the scenes: notably the candlelit graveyard, the “petal bridge” and the first sight of the land of the dead are done with such majesty and art that they take your breath away. Literally jaw dropping! (Try to make sure you see it on the big screen). So there are similarities here with “Blade Runner 2049” which also had images that could easily grace the walls of any art gallery in the world.
Where the film deviates from “Blade Runner” though is the original story by Lee Unkrich (who also directs), Adrian Molina (who co-directs), Jason Katz and Matthew Aldrich. Whereas the sci-fi reboot was a bit flaccid, story-wise, Coco develops in a surprisingly non-linear way. The story you think you are on suddenly does unexpected switchbacks and gets very deep indeed.
Deep? But this is a kids film right? Well, no, not really. Sure it has a lot of fun skeleton action, in the style of the re-constituting Olaf from “Frozen”, and a cute but mangy dog with a ridiculously long tongue. But the themes exposed here are FAR from childish. They encompass family, ambition, work/life balance, death and remembrance in such a fashion that parents exposing the film to young kids (I would think, up to 7 or 8 years old) should be ready with sensitive answers to “Mummy/Daddy, why…” questions so as to avoid significant anxiety and nightmares. The relationship between Miguel and his grandmother Abuelita, switching from violent outbursts to sudden loving hugs, might – I think – also confuse and disturb young children. Its UK certificate is “PG”, not “U”, for good reason.
So be prepared to cry. If you are anything like me, there will be a point in this film where you are desperately trying to recall the faces and voices of all of those people in your life that you have lost over the years. And some of the final jolts in this film will leave you almost as drained (almost!) as the start of “Up”.
As befits the subject matter there is a great score, with a mariachi feel, by Michael Giacchino, including a nice rendition of “When You Wish Upon A Star” over the Disney castle production logo. And there are some great songs, including the pivotal “Remember Me” which is now Oscar nominated.
Passport control at Heathrow was never like this.
Watch out for some nice cameo voice performances as well: Cheech Marin (from Cheech and Chong) plays the ‘border control’ officer, and Pixar regular John Ratzenberger (Hamm in “Toy Story”) turns up again playing Juan Ortodoncia, a character whose dentist fondly remembers him (LOL)!
With John Lasseter recently dragged into the #metoo scandal, and taking 6 months off to ponder on his “missteps”, one hopes this will not knock Pixar off its track too much. For with this evidence the studio shouldn’t keep trying to milk existing “Incredibles” and “Toy Story” franchises, but come up with more original entertainments like this. Because, for me, this rises into my top-three favourite Pixar films of all time (along with Toy Story and Wall-E).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Hiding Hitler in Tabletop Games
Apr 6, 2021
Adolf Hitler was an abomination of a person, can we all agree? Now that THAT is out of the way, let’s talk card games based on a character from history named Hitler. This game is based on a historical figure, but once translated to cardstock becomes simply the target of victory. When I heard the pitch (I paraphrased by quite a bit) for Hiding Hitler I immediately winced, as the subject matter makes me wince. But I took a chance on the game, and I am here to let you know that it will be okay, this is merely a card game, but if you are offended by the subject matter, please check out any of our other reviews that contain zero references to horrible people.
Hiding Hitler is a hand management, take that card game for four to six players. In it, players are trying to end the game with either the Hitler card in their hand or the Death token in their possession. The game is played over a series of turns and ends once the final turn has been taken, following the draw of the final card from the draw deck.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, shuffle the deck of cards and deal six cards to each player. Set the draw deck in the middle of the table, along with the other components. The left of the deck is considered the “Graveyard” and the right side of the deck is the “Action Pile.” Depending on the game mode chosen to play, the Hitler card may be in one of the players’ hands (Blitzkrieg mode – faster because Hitler is already in one player’s hand) or possibly in the draw deck (Strategic mode – slower if Hitler starts in the draw deck). The first player is now able to begin taking their turn and the hunt (or hiding) of Hitler may begin!
On a turn a player may play any amount of Action, Attack, or Instant cards from their hand, resolved one at a time. Action cards are just that: cards that allow for some type of action, be it drawing more cards, or having the entire table draw more cards. Attacks are targeted at a specific player and that player will need to roll the die in order to achieve the Attack card’s victory condition. For example, the Attack card may instruct the attacked to roll higher than value 2 on the die. If they beat that number nothing happens. However, should they roll a 1 (or simply not meet the number on the card) the failing player will need to discard Hitler to the Graveyard if they have it, or discard any other card to the Action Pile. Finally, Instant cards can be played AT ANY TIME, even if not on the player’s turn. These can negate actions or modify die/roll results. Once a player has no more cards to play (or cards they wish to play), the turn ends by drawing one card from the draw deck. It is now the next player’s turn.
Play continues in this fashion of players taking turns playing cards from their hands to attack each other, bolster their hands, and affect each other in various ways until the last card is drawn from the deck. This signifies one final turn for all players. When the final turns are over the winning player is they who either have the Hitler card in hand, or was the last player to send Hitler to the Graveyard, thus collecting the Death token. This winner may now awkwardly congratulate themselves on winning a card game based on eliminating or Hiding Hitler. Yay?
Components. Again, this is a prototype version of the game, so the components may be different as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, this game is a bunch of cards, a small die, and a plastic token with Hitler stickers. The cards are all fine, the die is a smaller size than your typical RPG set, and the plastic standee token is fine as well. I do need to address the art style on the cards. It is quite cartoony and really isn’t my style, but for this type of game it works just fine. I am not really excited by it at all, but there is nothing gruesome or triggery in the artwork. FOR ME. I do not speak for everyone though, so if you have issues with it, you are more than entitled to your opinions.
It is difficult to review, or even play for that matter, a game with such an emotionally charged central character. However, this is meant to be a lighthearted card game with a wonky theme. And it most certainly is that. Players are playing as many cards as they dare trying to find out where that Hitler card is residing so they may Attack and send it to the Graveyard. This earns the Death token. But can you hold onto that token until the end of the game? Depending on how far through the deck the game currently is, other players still may have chances to bring the Hitler card back to life. When this happens that Death token is surrendered and available to be earned again. I like that. Now, obviously, the whole zombie thing is weird, but the game is weird in itself, so that fits. Want to throw some achievements into your game? See how many times a player can send Hitler to the Graveyard. You can do that, and it would be a fun way to spice up the game for everyone.
At the end of the day, again, this is a card game with a Hitler theme. In it, Hitler really doesn’t DO anything. He just hangs out in players’ hands, gets sent to the Graveyard, possibly is resurrected, and the cycle continues until the end of the game. The theme may be off-putting for some, but I have no problems with it after having played it several times now. I cannot stress this enough: if you or any of your playmates MAY be offended by the theme, please do not pull this out at game night. It works best with players who can see it and appreciate it for what it is.
Now that the disclaimers are hopefully done, I can explain what this reminds me of, and give you some thoughts. Have you played Munchkin before? You know the part of the game (which we lovingly refer to as “the second half”) where one player is on 9th level attempting to win the game and everyone is ganging up on them to prevent the victory? Hiding Hitler feels a little like that scenario, but throughout the entire game. So many cards can be played on one turn and some cards are played out of turn to increase or decrease the die rolls, and when all players know exactly who has Hitler and they gang up on that player, it’s just Munchkin all over. Now, I feel like here in Hiding Hitler it doesn’t seem to be SO hurtful toward other players as it is in Munchkin, but I get that same vibe. It should be restated that I like Munchkin, so comping this to that game doesn’t necessarily mean it is at all a bad thing. It just gives me that same feeling.
So if you are looking for a possibly quicker and smaller card game to replace your copy of Munchkin, then check out Hiding Hitler. Yes, this is SUPER niche with the gameplay and theme, but with the right crowd I do believe it would be a hit. It has its flaws, but does also offer a rewarding gaming experience that I think about for hours after the game is over. When games can create lasting fond memories of the experience, then it has graduated into a good game. And I think Hiding Hitler is a good game. If you like the sounds of this one, I invite you to consider backing it on Kickstarter when the campaign launches. Find some friends ahead of time that may be into the theme, or can look past it, and prepare them for what is about to come: a game about keeping Hitler safe. Or murdering him. Either way.
Hiding Hitler is a hand management, take that card game for four to six players. In it, players are trying to end the game with either the Hitler card in their hand or the Death token in their possession. The game is played over a series of turns and ends once the final turn has been taken, following the draw of the final card from the draw deck.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, shuffle the deck of cards and deal six cards to each player. Set the draw deck in the middle of the table, along with the other components. The left of the deck is considered the “Graveyard” and the right side of the deck is the “Action Pile.” Depending on the game mode chosen to play, the Hitler card may be in one of the players’ hands (Blitzkrieg mode – faster because Hitler is already in one player’s hand) or possibly in the draw deck (Strategic mode – slower if Hitler starts in the draw deck). The first player is now able to begin taking their turn and the hunt (or hiding) of Hitler may begin!
On a turn a player may play any amount of Action, Attack, or Instant cards from their hand, resolved one at a time. Action cards are just that: cards that allow for some type of action, be it drawing more cards, or having the entire table draw more cards. Attacks are targeted at a specific player and that player will need to roll the die in order to achieve the Attack card’s victory condition. For example, the Attack card may instruct the attacked to roll higher than value 2 on the die. If they beat that number nothing happens. However, should they roll a 1 (or simply not meet the number on the card) the failing player will need to discard Hitler to the Graveyard if they have it, or discard any other card to the Action Pile. Finally, Instant cards can be played AT ANY TIME, even if not on the player’s turn. These can negate actions or modify die/roll results. Once a player has no more cards to play (or cards they wish to play), the turn ends by drawing one card from the draw deck. It is now the next player’s turn.
Play continues in this fashion of players taking turns playing cards from their hands to attack each other, bolster their hands, and affect each other in various ways until the last card is drawn from the deck. This signifies one final turn for all players. When the final turns are over the winning player is they who either have the Hitler card in hand, or was the last player to send Hitler to the Graveyard, thus collecting the Death token. This winner may now awkwardly congratulate themselves on winning a card game based on eliminating or Hiding Hitler. Yay?
Components. Again, this is a prototype version of the game, so the components may be different as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, this game is a bunch of cards, a small die, and a plastic token with Hitler stickers. The cards are all fine, the die is a smaller size than your typical RPG set, and the plastic standee token is fine as well. I do need to address the art style on the cards. It is quite cartoony and really isn’t my style, but for this type of game it works just fine. I am not really excited by it at all, but there is nothing gruesome or triggery in the artwork. FOR ME. I do not speak for everyone though, so if you have issues with it, you are more than entitled to your opinions.
It is difficult to review, or even play for that matter, a game with such an emotionally charged central character. However, this is meant to be a lighthearted card game with a wonky theme. And it most certainly is that. Players are playing as many cards as they dare trying to find out where that Hitler card is residing so they may Attack and send it to the Graveyard. This earns the Death token. But can you hold onto that token until the end of the game? Depending on how far through the deck the game currently is, other players still may have chances to bring the Hitler card back to life. When this happens that Death token is surrendered and available to be earned again. I like that. Now, obviously, the whole zombie thing is weird, but the game is weird in itself, so that fits. Want to throw some achievements into your game? See how many times a player can send Hitler to the Graveyard. You can do that, and it would be a fun way to spice up the game for everyone.
At the end of the day, again, this is a card game with a Hitler theme. In it, Hitler really doesn’t DO anything. He just hangs out in players’ hands, gets sent to the Graveyard, possibly is resurrected, and the cycle continues until the end of the game. The theme may be off-putting for some, but I have no problems with it after having played it several times now. I cannot stress this enough: if you or any of your playmates MAY be offended by the theme, please do not pull this out at game night. It works best with players who can see it and appreciate it for what it is.
Now that the disclaimers are hopefully done, I can explain what this reminds me of, and give you some thoughts. Have you played Munchkin before? You know the part of the game (which we lovingly refer to as “the second half”) where one player is on 9th level attempting to win the game and everyone is ganging up on them to prevent the victory? Hiding Hitler feels a little like that scenario, but throughout the entire game. So many cards can be played on one turn and some cards are played out of turn to increase or decrease the die rolls, and when all players know exactly who has Hitler and they gang up on that player, it’s just Munchkin all over. Now, I feel like here in Hiding Hitler it doesn’t seem to be SO hurtful toward other players as it is in Munchkin, but I get that same vibe. It should be restated that I like Munchkin, so comping this to that game doesn’t necessarily mean it is at all a bad thing. It just gives me that same feeling.
So if you are looking for a possibly quicker and smaller card game to replace your copy of Munchkin, then check out Hiding Hitler. Yes, this is SUPER niche with the gameplay and theme, but with the right crowd I do believe it would be a hit. It has its flaws, but does also offer a rewarding gaming experience that I think about for hours after the game is over. When games can create lasting fond memories of the experience, then it has graduated into a good game. And I think Hiding Hitler is a good game. If you like the sounds of this one, I invite you to consider backing it on Kickstarter when the campaign launches. Find some friends ahead of time that may be into the theme, or can look past it, and prepare them for what is about to come: a game about keeping Hitler safe. Or murdering him. Either way.
