Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Due Date (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
What could possibly go wrong when you pair a stressed out father-to-be, Peter (Robert Downey Jr.), with the world’s worst road trip partner, Ethan (Zach Galifianakis), on a trip from Atlanta to Los Angeles? In a karmic way, at least these two men appear to be meant for each other.
Zach Galifianakis’s role as Ethan Tremblay is wildly funny, though he plays a role very similar to the one he played in The Hangover, with a slightly more childish demeanor. If his character in the Hangover was a 14 year old in an adult’s body, in this film he is a 7 year old boy.
Peter Highman, played by Robert Downey Jr., is obviously frustrated because he’s trying to get home to his very pregnant wife. This inevitably creates an anger that is only exacerbated by the stupidity and carelessness of Ethan. The minor truces and cease-fires they found during their trip were constantly being broken by something Ethan would do that was hilariously rude and dumb.
This film walked a fine line with both characters, with Ethan pushing the charm up to keep us from totally hating him, all the while allowing Peter be an asshole from time to time to keep us from being too sympathetic to him. In one particularly funny moment, during a side stop soon after they take off from Atlanta, we see Peter discipline a young boy in a ridiculously inappropriate way that makes us question his fitness as a father. It’s during these times that the movie really shines. The chemistry between them was good for the most part, but the inevitable reconciliation between them was rushed at the end, and while the actors more than did their jobs, the script didn’t give them very much cause to act so suddenly benevolent toward each other.
Overall, the movie was funny, but not quite funny enough. Some of the gags were fairly disgusting, and while most didn’t detract from the movie, only a few really came across as well-executed. This movie had the potential to be very funny, but with some unresolved plot holes and some long stretches where nothing much was going on, I wouldn’t really recommend this to my friends, despite the big name actors and hype.
Zach Galifianakis’s role as Ethan Tremblay is wildly funny, though he plays a role very similar to the one he played in The Hangover, with a slightly more childish demeanor. If his character in the Hangover was a 14 year old in an adult’s body, in this film he is a 7 year old boy.
Peter Highman, played by Robert Downey Jr., is obviously frustrated because he’s trying to get home to his very pregnant wife. This inevitably creates an anger that is only exacerbated by the stupidity and carelessness of Ethan. The minor truces and cease-fires they found during their trip were constantly being broken by something Ethan would do that was hilariously rude and dumb.
This film walked a fine line with both characters, with Ethan pushing the charm up to keep us from totally hating him, all the while allowing Peter be an asshole from time to time to keep us from being too sympathetic to him. In one particularly funny moment, during a side stop soon after they take off from Atlanta, we see Peter discipline a young boy in a ridiculously inappropriate way that makes us question his fitness as a father. It’s during these times that the movie really shines. The chemistry between them was good for the most part, but the inevitable reconciliation between them was rushed at the end, and while the actors more than did their jobs, the script didn’t give them very much cause to act so suddenly benevolent toward each other.
Overall, the movie was funny, but not quite funny enough. Some of the gags were fairly disgusting, and while most didn’t detract from the movie, only a few really came across as well-executed. This movie had the potential to be very funny, but with some unresolved plot holes and some long stretches where nothing much was going on, I wouldn’t really recommend this to my friends, despite the big name actors and hype.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Imposter in Books
Mar 11, 2021
A confusing mess of a thriller
Attorney Sibley Sawyer's life goes down in flames when her drinking finally catches up with her. Forced to take a leave of absence from her firm, Sibley seeks the perceived source of her problems: her mother, Deborah. The two have been estranged since Sibley fled home in her late teens. But when Sibley returns to the Midwestern farm where she grew up, she realizes her mother is acting odd. Perhaps it's due to her recent attack, when an intruder brutally beat her. Either way, as Sidney tries to make peace with Deborah, she starts to recall why she left in the first place--and uncovers even more shocking secrets about long ago happenings on the farm.
Well, the synopsis for this one sounded interesting, but this was a hot mess for me. I did not like much of this book at all, but kept reading because I needed to find out what happened. I think I was as confused as these hapless and unlikable characters, honestly. Deborah is clearly disoriented and bewildered throughout the book--alone and terrified on the farm--and it's nearly impossible to muddle through what's going on in her brain. Sidney is drinking heavily, and while I have complete sympathy for the disease of alcoholism, having lost a beloved relative to it, I'm tired of authors using the trope to give us an unreliable narrator with no real effort for a backstory or anything else.
Neither character comes across as particularly sympathetic, and I got rather tired of reading a book with my brow perpetually furrowed. It was not exciting, just confusing. The plot is truly bizarre, with some weird twists, but I felt I was reading to work out a bad puzzle. Maybe all this befuddlement would have been worth it if the probable "bad guy" had not been telegraphed from a mile away, but I had the outline of this figured out from the start.
Overall, as much as I regret it, this thriller did not work for me at all. It's confusing--but not in an exciting, psychological way, predictable, and filled with narrative threads that never seem to link back together. Others seemed to enjoy it more, so I hope that's the case for you if you pick it up.
I received a copy from Netgalley and Thomas & Mercer in return for an unbiased review.
Well, the synopsis for this one sounded interesting, but this was a hot mess for me. I did not like much of this book at all, but kept reading because I needed to find out what happened. I think I was as confused as these hapless and unlikable characters, honestly. Deborah is clearly disoriented and bewildered throughout the book--alone and terrified on the farm--and it's nearly impossible to muddle through what's going on in her brain. Sidney is drinking heavily, and while I have complete sympathy for the disease of alcoholism, having lost a beloved relative to it, I'm tired of authors using the trope to give us an unreliable narrator with no real effort for a backstory or anything else.
Neither character comes across as particularly sympathetic, and I got rather tired of reading a book with my brow perpetually furrowed. It was not exciting, just confusing. The plot is truly bizarre, with some weird twists, but I felt I was reading to work out a bad puzzle. Maybe all this befuddlement would have been worth it if the probable "bad guy" had not been telegraphed from a mile away, but I had the outline of this figured out from the start.
Overall, as much as I regret it, this thriller did not work for me at all. It's confusing--but not in an exciting, psychological way, predictable, and filled with narrative threads that never seem to link back together. Others seemed to enjoy it more, so I hope that's the case for you if you pick it up.
I received a copy from Netgalley and Thomas & Mercer in return for an unbiased review.
Photo Editor by Aviary
Photo & Video and Productivity
App
A magical way to create and share beautiful photos. One of the New York Times' "Best Apps for iOS...
Flitsmeister
Navigation and Travel
App
Flitsmeister saves you money on fines, warns you of traffic jams and prevents accidents. Over...
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Turn of the Screw in Books
Mar 24, 2020 (Updated Mar 24, 2020)
Well written (1 more)
Ahead of its time
Overly descriptive (1 more)
Vague
The ghost stories of the Victorian era are full of scares and mysteries- - - from the karma-ridden future, past and present ghosts of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" to the comedic ghost story by Oscar Wilde called 'the Canterville Ghost." But among all of them, Henry James found another subject to add to the pot in the novella 'the Turn of the Screw.'
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Good Dinosaur (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Is it as good as Inside Out?
2015 has been a great year for film. From long-awaited sequels to the conclusion of epic franchises, it’s been one of the best and most successful movie seasons in recent memory, and with Star Wars: the Force Awakens out in December, it can only finish on a high.
It also marks the first time that Pixar has released two films in the same year. Summer saw the release of instant-classic Inside Out and now animation fans get to enjoy another movie from the studio, The Good Dinosaur, but has Pixar bitten of more than it can chew?
The Good Dinosaur follows the story of a young Apatosaurus named Arlo, voiced beautifully by Raymond Ochoa, as he comes to terms with growing up in an ever-changing world where dinosaurs never met their well-documented fates.
He, alongside human child Spot suddenly find themselves embroiled in a dangerous journey after getting lost a long way from their homes.
If this all sounds a little formulaic to you, then that’s because it is. The Good Dinosaur has a plot more akin to Paramount animation, rather than the exceptional storytelling we have come to expect from Pixar. There’s nothing particularly special or unique about the plot and this is a real shame.
Thankfully, Pixar’s usual gut-punches are out in full force and The Good Dinosaur is among one of the emotional films in the studio’s roster. Personal tragedy is never an easy thing to convey in a movie meant to be enjoyed by the whole family, but here it is dealt with in a beautiful and tasteful manner.
Scenes in which Arlo and Spot share their circumstances with each other hit home hard and are deeply saddening to watch.
The cinematography too is absolutely exceptional. The breath-taking prehistoric landscapes are rendered in such stunning animation, they almost feel real. From raging white-water to beautiful sun-flooded forests, everything is a joy to behold and this is where The Good Dinosaur excels – a firefly swarm in particular is spectacular and propels the film into How to Train Your Dragon territory for sheer spectacle.
However, the entire film feels like a show reel, albeit a mesmerising one, for the talents at Pixar. Each shot of scenery is lingered on for a little too long and agoraphobic Arlo’s plight can sometimes take a backseat to this beauty.
Nevertheless, there are some wonderful characters here. A trio of T-Rex, who turn out to be cowboys – or should that be cowdinos, provide The Good Dinosaur with some of its more standout moments and it’s the lack of these sequences where the film is found wanting.
Overall, Pixar has created another excellent piece of animation with The Good Dinosaur. Though not quite at their ‘gold standard,’ the film is a wonder to behold and shows just how gorgeous animated features can be.
Unfortunately, the lack of an original story ensures it’ll prove second best to Inside Out in this year’s battle despite its deeper emotional resonance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/29/is-it-as-good-as-inside-out-the-good-dinosaur-review/
It also marks the first time that Pixar has released two films in the same year. Summer saw the release of instant-classic Inside Out and now animation fans get to enjoy another movie from the studio, The Good Dinosaur, but has Pixar bitten of more than it can chew?
The Good Dinosaur follows the story of a young Apatosaurus named Arlo, voiced beautifully by Raymond Ochoa, as he comes to terms with growing up in an ever-changing world where dinosaurs never met their well-documented fates.
He, alongside human child Spot suddenly find themselves embroiled in a dangerous journey after getting lost a long way from their homes.
If this all sounds a little formulaic to you, then that’s because it is. The Good Dinosaur has a plot more akin to Paramount animation, rather than the exceptional storytelling we have come to expect from Pixar. There’s nothing particularly special or unique about the plot and this is a real shame.
Thankfully, Pixar’s usual gut-punches are out in full force and The Good Dinosaur is among one of the emotional films in the studio’s roster. Personal tragedy is never an easy thing to convey in a movie meant to be enjoyed by the whole family, but here it is dealt with in a beautiful and tasteful manner.
Scenes in which Arlo and Spot share their circumstances with each other hit home hard and are deeply saddening to watch.
The cinematography too is absolutely exceptional. The breath-taking prehistoric landscapes are rendered in such stunning animation, they almost feel real. From raging white-water to beautiful sun-flooded forests, everything is a joy to behold and this is where The Good Dinosaur excels – a firefly swarm in particular is spectacular and propels the film into How to Train Your Dragon territory for sheer spectacle.
However, the entire film feels like a show reel, albeit a mesmerising one, for the talents at Pixar. Each shot of scenery is lingered on for a little too long and agoraphobic Arlo’s plight can sometimes take a backseat to this beauty.
Nevertheless, there are some wonderful characters here. A trio of T-Rex, who turn out to be cowboys – or should that be cowdinos, provide The Good Dinosaur with some of its more standout moments and it’s the lack of these sequences where the film is found wanting.
Overall, Pixar has created another excellent piece of animation with The Good Dinosaur. Though not quite at their ‘gold standard,’ the film is a wonder to behold and shows just how gorgeous animated features can be.
Unfortunately, the lack of an original story ensures it’ll prove second best to Inside Out in this year’s battle despite its deeper emotional resonance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/29/is-it-as-good-as-inside-out-the-good-dinosaur-review/
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Drag Me to Hell (2009) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Sam Raimi (1 more)
Alison Lohman
PG-13 (1 more)
Justin Long
Old Lady Curse
Drag me to Hell- is a anethor movie that ive wanted to see for couple years now and it was not disappointed. Its gory, horrorfying, terrorfying, scary, gory and overall a excellent movie.
The plot: Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) has a loving boyfriend (Justin Long) and a great job at a Los Angeles bank. But her heavenly life becomes hellish when, in an effort to impress her boss, she denies an old woman's request for an extension on her home loan. In retaliation, the crone places a curse on Christine, threatening her soul with eternal damnation. Christine seeks a psychic's help to break the curse, but the price to save her soul may be more than she can pay.
Raimi wrote Drag Me to Hell with his brother, Ivan, before working on the Spider-Man trilogy.
The original story for Drag Me to Hell was written ten years before the film went into production and was written by Sam Raimi and his brother Ivan Raimi. The film went into production under the name The Curse. The Raimis wrote the script as a morality tale, desiring to write a story about a character who wants to be a good person, but makes a sinful choice out of greed for her own betterment and pays the price for it. The Raimis tried to make the character of Christine the main focal point in the film, and tried to have Christine in almost all the scenes in the film.
The most significant parallel is that both stories involve the passing of a cursed object, which has to be passed to someone else, or its possessor will be devoured by one or more demons. Unlike his past horror films, Raimi wanted the film to be rated PG-13 and not strictly driven by gore, stating, "I didn't want to do exactly the same thing I had done before."
After finishing the script, Raimi desired to make the picture after the first draft of the script was completed, but other projects such as the Spider-Man film series became a nearly decade-long endeavor, pushing opportunities to continue work on Drag Me to Hell to late 2007. Raimi offered director Edgar Wright to direct Drag Me to Hell which Wright turned down as he was filming Hot Fuzz and felt that "If I did it, it would just feel like karaoke." After the previous three Spider-Man films, Raimi came back to the script of Drag Me to Hell, wanting to make a simpler and lower-budget film.
Raimi said he set out to create “a horror film with lots of wild moments and lots of suspense and big shocks that’ll hopefully make audiences jump. But I also wanted to have a lot of dark humor sprinkled throughout. I spent the last decade doing Spider-Man and you come to rely on a lot of people doing things for you and a lot of help, but it’s refreshing and wonderful to be reminded that, as with most filmmakers, the best way to do it is yourself, with a tight team doing the main jobs."
Its a excellent movie.
The plot: Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) has a loving boyfriend (Justin Long) and a great job at a Los Angeles bank. But her heavenly life becomes hellish when, in an effort to impress her boss, she denies an old woman's request for an extension on her home loan. In retaliation, the crone places a curse on Christine, threatening her soul with eternal damnation. Christine seeks a psychic's help to break the curse, but the price to save her soul may be more than she can pay.
Raimi wrote Drag Me to Hell with his brother, Ivan, before working on the Spider-Man trilogy.
The original story for Drag Me to Hell was written ten years before the film went into production and was written by Sam Raimi and his brother Ivan Raimi. The film went into production under the name The Curse. The Raimis wrote the script as a morality tale, desiring to write a story about a character who wants to be a good person, but makes a sinful choice out of greed for her own betterment and pays the price for it. The Raimis tried to make the character of Christine the main focal point in the film, and tried to have Christine in almost all the scenes in the film.
The most significant parallel is that both stories involve the passing of a cursed object, which has to be passed to someone else, or its possessor will be devoured by one or more demons. Unlike his past horror films, Raimi wanted the film to be rated PG-13 and not strictly driven by gore, stating, "I didn't want to do exactly the same thing I had done before."
After finishing the script, Raimi desired to make the picture after the first draft of the script was completed, but other projects such as the Spider-Man film series became a nearly decade-long endeavor, pushing opportunities to continue work on Drag Me to Hell to late 2007. Raimi offered director Edgar Wright to direct Drag Me to Hell which Wright turned down as he was filming Hot Fuzz and felt that "If I did it, it would just feel like karaoke." After the previous three Spider-Man films, Raimi came back to the script of Drag Me to Hell, wanting to make a simpler and lower-budget film.
Raimi said he set out to create “a horror film with lots of wild moments and lots of suspense and big shocks that’ll hopefully make audiences jump. But I also wanted to have a lot of dark humor sprinkled throughout. I spent the last decade doing Spider-Man and you come to rely on a lot of people doing things for you and a lot of help, but it’s refreshing and wonderful to be reminded that, as with most filmmakers, the best way to do it is yourself, with a tight team doing the main jobs."
Its a excellent movie.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Dec 6, 2017
Not as Bad as the Critics Said
Passengers works for me largely in part due to the great chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. Their relationship is believable, real. Exactly what I would expect from two people stuck in a space paradise together. I try to avoid words like "sizzle" and "spice" when describing onscreen pairings, but it's 7:30pm on a Tuesday night and I have folded clothes to put away. So....Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence absolutely sizzle onscreen together! Free from the inhibitions of watching eyes the duo adds real spice to the film's flavor. Yep, that just happened. No regrets. Yolo.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated The Girl in The Tower: The Winternight Trilogy in Books
Mar 22, 2018
The Girl in the Tower is the second in the Winternight Trilogy, after the acclaimed debut novel, The Bear and the Nightingale. It's always hard to talk about sequels without giving too much away about the preceding books, so forgive me if I'm vague. One advantage to waiting so long to read The Bear and the Nightingale was that I got to jump straight into the sequel! Now I have to several months for the third.
The Girl in the Tower revisits our heroine, Vasya, from the first book. Now she has left home to begin her adventures - though her travels are curtailed pretty quickly, and she's roped into going to Moscow with her brother and the Grand Prince, while disguised as a boy. While in Moscow she learns a little bit more about her family history, and I'm hoping the rest will be revealed in the third book this summer. (The Winter of the Witch is scheduled to release in August 2018.)
In this second book, Vasya has done some growing, and has learned to make use of the spirits she sees - she knows the hearth spirits can always find their families, and uses that trait to track a kidnapped girl when no one else can. So long as no one realizes what she's doing, she's fine. But Rus is in the crossover period between the old ways and the new, and if she's found talking to spirits, she'll be branded a witch all over again. She keeps her masquerade going through the first two-thirds of the book, but it's obvious it's going to fail eventually. The way in which it does is sudden and unexpected, and the repercussions are harsh.
And then there's Morozko, the Frost Demon, the god of death. I love Morozko. He's by necessity enigmatic - and in a rough position. I want he and Vasya to fall in love and have a happy ending - the attraction between them is impossible to miss - but immortal beings, in this world, can't love. If they love they lose their immortality. And, possibly, their lives entirely. I hope the author has a solution in mind for these two, because I currently don't see one.
I actually liked this one more than the first book, which is unusual. I liked the first one, but I wasn't blown away. This one pulled me in and didn't let me go. Amazing sequel, and I hope the third one lives up to this standard!
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
The Girl in the Tower revisits our heroine, Vasya, from the first book. Now she has left home to begin her adventures - though her travels are curtailed pretty quickly, and she's roped into going to Moscow with her brother and the Grand Prince, while disguised as a boy. While in Moscow she learns a little bit more about her family history, and I'm hoping the rest will be revealed in the third book this summer. (The Winter of the Witch is scheduled to release in August 2018.)
In this second book, Vasya has done some growing, and has learned to make use of the spirits she sees - she knows the hearth spirits can always find their families, and uses that trait to track a kidnapped girl when no one else can. So long as no one realizes what she's doing, she's fine. But Rus is in the crossover period between the old ways and the new, and if she's found talking to spirits, she'll be branded a witch all over again. She keeps her masquerade going through the first two-thirds of the book, but it's obvious it's going to fail eventually. The way in which it does is sudden and unexpected, and the repercussions are harsh.
And then there's Morozko, the Frost Demon, the god of death. I love Morozko. He's by necessity enigmatic - and in a rough position. I want he and Vasya to fall in love and have a happy ending - the attraction between them is impossible to miss - but immortal beings, in this world, can't love. If they love they lose their immortality. And, possibly, their lives entirely. I hope the author has a solution in mind for these two, because I currently don't see one.
I actually liked this one more than the first book, which is unusual. I liked the first one, but I wasn't blown away. This one pulled me in and didn't let me go. Amazing sequel, and I hope the third one lives up to this standard!
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I long for the blockbusters to come around again so I can stop saying "this is great but..." It has definitely become my mantra for January and I think it's the curse of awards season.
Melissa McCarthy is the second actor this month to take a big leap in genre and I'm loving it. Her comedy offerings have always amused me, Life Of The Party last year was great fun and I've just discovered she was DNAmy in Kim Possible so that means I need to watch all of that again!
I'm in danger of going off point now I've realised that last fact. Where was I?
McCarthy... Lee Israel is rather brash and as such has the potential to be entirely unlikeable, the performance is excellent though and McCarthy manages to make every situation feel very real. Despite that though I didn't get any real emotions out of any of it.
Luckily Richard E. Grant's inclusion allows the film to have a few lighter moments and the pair work wonderfully together on screen. I'm rather glad that this erased some of the damage The Nutcracker And The Four Realms did.
At no point during the film did I think anything was badly done. Lead and supporting actors were brilliant, the story it was based on was an interesting one... insert my phrase of the month here... The main issue I had with the film was pacing. I came out thinking that was a long two hour film before realising that it was only actually an hour and 46 minutes. At the mid-point my interest dwindled severely for a while but it did thankfully pick up a little. There are several bits that don't feel like they have much of a place in the story, whether they're part of the original narrative or added for the film I don't know but while they might have been there for background they didn't add any impact to the main story.
This rating has me a little at odds, the stars are mainly for the acting and the switch in pace for Melissa McCarthy, and as I said, nothing is badly done. Even with the limited audience potential this could have been an amazing film had it had something to keep you interested the whole way through.
What you should do
It's got some good points, but it is a very niche subject matter so I don't think I'd be recommending a viewing to anyone but my most booky friends.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All those glorious bookshops!
Melissa McCarthy is the second actor this month to take a big leap in genre and I'm loving it. Her comedy offerings have always amused me, Life Of The Party last year was great fun and I've just discovered she was DNAmy in Kim Possible so that means I need to watch all of that again!
I'm in danger of going off point now I've realised that last fact. Where was I?
McCarthy... Lee Israel is rather brash and as such has the potential to be entirely unlikeable, the performance is excellent though and McCarthy manages to make every situation feel very real. Despite that though I didn't get any real emotions out of any of it.
Luckily Richard E. Grant's inclusion allows the film to have a few lighter moments and the pair work wonderfully together on screen. I'm rather glad that this erased some of the damage The Nutcracker And The Four Realms did.
At no point during the film did I think anything was badly done. Lead and supporting actors were brilliant, the story it was based on was an interesting one... insert my phrase of the month here... The main issue I had with the film was pacing. I came out thinking that was a long two hour film before realising that it was only actually an hour and 46 minutes. At the mid-point my interest dwindled severely for a while but it did thankfully pick up a little. There are several bits that don't feel like they have much of a place in the story, whether they're part of the original narrative or added for the film I don't know but while they might have been there for background they didn't add any impact to the main story.
This rating has me a little at odds, the stars are mainly for the acting and the switch in pace for Melissa McCarthy, and as I said, nothing is badly done. Even with the limited audience potential this could have been an amazing film had it had something to keep you interested the whole way through.
What you should do
It's got some good points, but it is a very niche subject matter so I don't think I'd be recommending a viewing to anyone but my most booky friends.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All those glorious bookshops!